by Alex Safian, PhD
Peace Now, the Israel-based advocacy group claimed in a controversial report, Breaking the Law – One Violation Leads to Another, that “a large proportion of the settlements built on the West Bank are built on privately owned Palestinian land,” including 86.4% of Ma’ale Adumim’s land and 35.1% of Ariel’s. Overall, the report claims, “Palestinians privately own nearly 40% of the land on which settlements have been built.” This is in direct contradiction to often repeated claims by numerous Israeli governments that settlements are built only on state (that is, public) land and not on private land. CAMERA raised numerous factual and legal objections to Peace Now’s claims (see here and here), which the group never addressed. Peace Now, however, was eventually forced to admit that no more than 0.54% of Ma’ale Adumim’s land was privately owned by Palestinians. That is, Peace Now had erred by almost 16,000 percent!
Now comes word of another error – one with real consequences. Peace Now claimed in its original report that the community of Revava sat on land that was 71.15% privately owned by Palestinians. Revava did not agree that any of their land was privately owned by Palestinians. According to an article in Israel National News Revava therefore complained to Peace Now, which, without admitting any error, reduced the figure of 71.15% to 22%.
Peace Now, however, refused to accurately correct their original claim, and refused to issue an apology. The group that formally owns Revava’s land, The Fund for Redeeming the Land, then sued Peace Now and the report’s authors (Dror Etkes and Hagit Ofran) for libel in Jerusalem Magistrates Court.
The decision came on December 11th and it was a slam dunk for Revava and Fund attorney Doron Nir Tzvi. Justice Yehezkel Barclay convicted Peace Now and its staffers of libel, ordered them to pay the Fund 20,000 NIS plus tax, and to make a public apology which they must publish in the newspapers Ha’aretz and Maariv.
Will Peace Now finally come clean and admit that the rest of their report is also nonsense? Or will each community that it libeled have to file a similar lawsuit for the full truth to come out?
Thanks CAMERA
Comment: These are villages, towns and cities, inhabited by Israeli citizens in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaeria
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Maariv Loses Libel Suit to Settlers
Yet another false media report about the land status of a particular settlement has been exposed. The Israeli site Walla reported June 25 (CAMERA's translation):
Ma'ariv To Compensate Settlers With 20,000 Shekels
The newspaper must compensate 13 residents of the Maale Rehavam outpost after it published that it was founded on Palestinian land, even though it was founded on state land. The Jerusalem court today ruled that Ma'ariv will soon compensate 13 residents of the Maale Rehavam outpost for 20,000 shekels and ruled that that the paper must print a correction or retraction within two weeks regarding the article that appeared May 16, 2006. The article claimed that the Maale Rehavam outpost was founded on private Palestinian land, while according to its plans it's founded on state lands. Following the publication of the article, 13 of the outpost's founders filed a slander suit, claiming that the article portrays them as thieves and criminals.
The article by then Ma'ariv reporter Ori Yavlonka dealt with six illegal outposts in Judea and Samaria that were on the verge of demolition. The article claimed that the outpost report by lawyer Talia Sasson maintained that Maale Rehavam was founded on private Palestinian land. A month later, following the evacuation of the residents the Ma'ariv-nrg Web site published another article that dealt entirely with the Maale Rehavam outpost, which stated that it was founded on state land. The residents were not satisfied by this article. Judge Yitzhak Milnov agreed with their claim in his ruling: "Whoever reads the article which was published on the Internet does not at all know that this article was meant to correct or clarify an erroneous article."
In the suit filed for the residents by attorney Eyal Simal Tov, the residents requested a published retraction and apology and compensation amounting to 7,750 shekels per residents -- some 100,000 shekels total.
In its defense Ma'ariv argued that there is a distinction between the outpost and its residents and claimed that an article on the settlement is not tantamount to an article on its residents. Judge Milnov ruled: "The distinction requested by the defendants between the outpost and its residents, with all due respect, is not acceptable. An article which reports on the illegal founding of any geographic settlement, also intrinsically incorporates a statement about the ethics of the people who established that very same settlement. . . The claim according to which the Ma'ale Rehavam outpost is founded on private Palestinian land is likely to cause a reasonable reader to think that the residents of the outpost are people that believe that the laws of the state do not apply to them, that they are making their own laws for themselves, and that they are ruling over lands that are not theirs."
Nevertheless, Judge Milnov ruled that the compensation demanded by the plaintiffs was too high and ruled that Ma'ariv will compensate the settlers 1,000 shekels [each] and will cover court costs totalling 5,000 shekels.
It is reprehensible that legal action -- as opposed to public and private appeals to fair play -- are required to get corrections on false reports about settlements, as in the case of Peace Now, which paid up to the residents of Revava for its false report.
Posted by TS at June 29, 2009 05:25 AM
Monday, June 29, 2009
The confused Barack Obama
With passage of time, greater doubts emerge over values guiding president
Mor Altshuler
YNET News
In recent days, the world has seen simple folk in Iran risking their lives in order to gain freedom. They are standing there unarmed, only equipped with their righteousness, in the face of snipers firing into the masses. The world saw Neda, a gentle-looking woman shot by a sniper during a protest; blood gushed out of her mouth and she bled to death on the street. Is Neda akin to a bothersome fly that can be crushed with one hand gesture? Is her death a domestic Iranian affair? The whole world saw and understood, with the exception of the American president. At first, his spokespeople said that the US will not be interfering so it is not accused of organizing the uprising. Yet with the passage of time, it turned out that events in Iran are not an outside conspiracy, but rather, a cry of despair from the hearts of Iranians who are fed up with the poverty, suppression, and isolation forced upon them by the fanatic clerics.
What is going through Obama’s mind when he condemns, belatedly and meekly, the violence against civilians whose only sin was their desire to see their democratic vote respected? Why isn’t he coming to the aid of those rebelling in the name of universal values – democracy, liberty, and fairness? After all, thanks to these values he was elected president. Why is he turning his back on the young men and women on Tehran’s streets who would have likely voted for him had they been American citizens?
The mass protests in Iran could have been America’s finest hour; a repayment of a debt the Americans owe Iran ever since President Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah in 1979 and allowed Khomeini to take over Iran. Moreover, toppling the Ayatollah regime is a supreme US interest: The quickly nuclearizing Iran threatens first and foremost its neighbors – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Persian Gulf emirates. All of them are allies of the US and its leading oil suppliers. An Iranian takeover would curb the source of America’s cheap and readily available oil and paralyze its economy, which as it is faces a deep crisis.
More broadly, the nuclearizing Iran threatens the stability of pro-American regimes in the Middle East, including Turkey and Egypt, whose president pled with Obama to handle the Iranian problem because this issue, rather than Israel, constitutes a real threat to his state and its pro-Western regime.
In the third ring we see European states, which are already in range of Iranian missiles. On the global scale, the Ayatollah-led Iran is a source of financial support, equipment, and training for the Muslim terror groups that hit the US on September 11th, 2001. Iran is also an ally of North Korean, whose nuclear arms threaten Japan and the Far East.
Bush would have acted differently
In recent days, many Iranians risked their lives and created an opportunity to cut off the head of the snake, whose venom feeds Hizbullah, Hamas and al-Qaeda, remove the Ayatollahs, boost pro-American forces, and eliminate from the map of global threats a highly dangerous regime that feeds terror worldwide.
We can assume that America’s previous president would have taken advantage of the opportunity and announced that the forgers of votes lost their legitimacy to rule Iran. Perhaps he would have even advanced US troops in Iraq to the Iranian border and declared that ongoing bloodshed would force him to order soldiers into Iran in order to save its citizens from the violence of the thugs. We can assume that decisive support by the US president would have served as a boost that the Iranian masses are desperate for; a crucial step en route to toppling the Ayatollah regime a moment before it produces a nuclear bomb.
However, the American president is willing to engage in negotiations with Iran’s illegitimate regime. Barack Obama responded to the violence in Tehran by returning the American ambassador to Syria, whose leader Bashar Assad was the first to congratulate Ahmadinejad for his fraudulent “victory.” Obama stammers when he needs to defend democracy and human rights, unless we are dealing with Hamas’ right to openly try to exterminate the State of Israel or the right of Muslim fanatics to produce nuclear bombs with no interruptions.
A few days ago, in a press conference, Obama muttered that he does not wish to be a tool at the hands of another state to promote its interests, and it was clear which state he was referring to. Does Obama believe that readily available oil and the boosting of US supporters in the Middle East is only an Israeli interest? And what’s wrong with supporting Israel, which fears extermination by an Iranian nuclear bomb? With the passage of time, greater doubts emerge in respect to the values that guide Obama and prompt him to blatantly act against US interests. I must admit I have no answer.
Dr. Mor Altshuler is a Jewish Thinking researcher
Mor Altshuler
YNET News
In recent days, the world has seen simple folk in Iran risking their lives in order to gain freedom. They are standing there unarmed, only equipped with their righteousness, in the face of snipers firing into the masses. The world saw Neda, a gentle-looking woman shot by a sniper during a protest; blood gushed out of her mouth and she bled to death on the street. Is Neda akin to a bothersome fly that can be crushed with one hand gesture? Is her death a domestic Iranian affair? The whole world saw and understood, with the exception of the American president. At first, his spokespeople said that the US will not be interfering so it is not accused of organizing the uprising. Yet with the passage of time, it turned out that events in Iran are not an outside conspiracy, but rather, a cry of despair from the hearts of Iranians who are fed up with the poverty, suppression, and isolation forced upon them by the fanatic clerics.
What is going through Obama’s mind when he condemns, belatedly and meekly, the violence against civilians whose only sin was their desire to see their democratic vote respected? Why isn’t he coming to the aid of those rebelling in the name of universal values – democracy, liberty, and fairness? After all, thanks to these values he was elected president. Why is he turning his back on the young men and women on Tehran’s streets who would have likely voted for him had they been American citizens?
The mass protests in Iran could have been America’s finest hour; a repayment of a debt the Americans owe Iran ever since President Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah in 1979 and allowed Khomeini to take over Iran. Moreover, toppling the Ayatollah regime is a supreme US interest: The quickly nuclearizing Iran threatens first and foremost its neighbors – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Persian Gulf emirates. All of them are allies of the US and its leading oil suppliers. An Iranian takeover would curb the source of America’s cheap and readily available oil and paralyze its economy, which as it is faces a deep crisis.
More broadly, the nuclearizing Iran threatens the stability of pro-American regimes in the Middle East, including Turkey and Egypt, whose president pled with Obama to handle the Iranian problem because this issue, rather than Israel, constitutes a real threat to his state and its pro-Western regime.
In the third ring we see European states, which are already in range of Iranian missiles. On the global scale, the Ayatollah-led Iran is a source of financial support, equipment, and training for the Muslim terror groups that hit the US on September 11th, 2001. Iran is also an ally of North Korean, whose nuclear arms threaten Japan and the Far East.
Bush would have acted differently
In recent days, many Iranians risked their lives and created an opportunity to cut off the head of the snake, whose venom feeds Hizbullah, Hamas and al-Qaeda, remove the Ayatollahs, boost pro-American forces, and eliminate from the map of global threats a highly dangerous regime that feeds terror worldwide.
We can assume that America’s previous president would have taken advantage of the opportunity and announced that the forgers of votes lost their legitimacy to rule Iran. Perhaps he would have even advanced US troops in Iraq to the Iranian border and declared that ongoing bloodshed would force him to order soldiers into Iran in order to save its citizens from the violence of the thugs. We can assume that decisive support by the US president would have served as a boost that the Iranian masses are desperate for; a crucial step en route to toppling the Ayatollah regime a moment before it produces a nuclear bomb.
However, the American president is willing to engage in negotiations with Iran’s illegitimate regime. Barack Obama responded to the violence in Tehran by returning the American ambassador to Syria, whose leader Bashar Assad was the first to congratulate Ahmadinejad for his fraudulent “victory.” Obama stammers when he needs to defend democracy and human rights, unless we are dealing with Hamas’ right to openly try to exterminate the State of Israel or the right of Muslim fanatics to produce nuclear bombs with no interruptions.
A few days ago, in a press conference, Obama muttered that he does not wish to be a tool at the hands of another state to promote its interests, and it was clear which state he was referring to. Does Obama believe that readily available oil and the boosting of US supporters in the Middle East is only an Israeli interest? And what’s wrong with supporting Israel, which fears extermination by an Iranian nuclear bomb? With the passage of time, greater doubts emerge in respect to the values that guide Obama and prompt him to blatantly act against US interests. I must admit I have no answer.
Dr. Mor Altshuler is a Jewish Thinking researcher
COP: Waxman-Markey is hilarious, but the joke is on us
Myron Ebell
Monday, June 29, 2009
Of all the proposals in President Barack Obama's breathtakingly ambitious agenda to foster long-term economic decline, by far the biggest is the Waxman-Markey energy-rationing bill, which the House of Representatives passed with the narrowest of majorities late Friday evening. This bill by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) is more damaging than the $787 billion stimulus, the proposed huge increases in federal spending and corresponding increases in the national debt, the takeover of GM and Chrysler, and the proposed tax hikes on the wealthy - combined. Enacting Waxman-Markey (H. R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act) would almost certainly make America a second-rate economic power. However, the bill is full of ironies and amusing touches. Were it not a looming disaster, the whole situation would be hilarious.
The bill is supposed to be about saving us from global warming. Yet its supporters have stopped talking about global warming. This might be because global temperatures stopped rising a decade ago. More likely it's because the pollsters have told Democrats to shut up about global warming and green jobs. The new slogan: get America running on “clean energy.”
The bill’s advocates view it as merely a first step, as former Vice President Al Gore told “super-activists” (all 11,500 of “us”) on a conference call Tuesday night. It’s the biggest tax increase in the history of the world, the largest government intrusion in people's lives since the Second World War (which was the last time gasoline was rationed) and, at 1,201 pages, a whopper of a bill. Requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 is just the beginning.
The reason given for why it has taken years to pass major climate legislation is the bajillion dollars spent by fat cat corporate special interests--Big Oil, King Coal, etc. But a major push behind Waxman-Markey is the United States Climate Partnership (USCAP), whose members include two dozen or so major corporations (including Duke Energy, Dow, GE, Shell, BP, Ford, GM, Alcoa, PG&E, Exelon, DuPont, PepsiCo, even Caterpillar) and some of the same environmental pressure groups that blame big business for stymieing energy-rationing legislation.
Adding to the irony, the corporate CEOs who support cap-and-trade are fawned over for putting the good of the planet ahead of short-term profits. This is a shameful racket that is all about short-term windfall profits. When testifying before Congress, several CEOs of USCAP member companies said that passing Waxman-Markey was imperative but that they would have to oppose it if they had to buy the ration coupons at auction rather than be given them for free. Al Gore, too, could make hundreds of millions of dollars from his investments in alternative energy companies if Waxman-Markey makes them profitable.
The bill’s proponents talk about protecting consumers while intermittently acknowledging that cap-and-trade can only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by dramatically raising the price of energy derived from coal, oil and natural gas. President Obama said during the campaign last year that "under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Dr. Peter Orszag, now head of the White House Office and Management and Budget, testified last year when he was head of the Congressional Budget Office that "price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program."
When Waxman announced that they had given away 85% of the ration coupons to the various powerful special interests, he added that the purpose was to protect consumers from price increases. If that were true, then consumers would have no reason to reduce their energy consumption, nor would they be forced to use more expensive alternative energy, which would mean that the entire purpose of the bill (the reduction of greenhouse gases) would be rendered moot.
The unacknowledged truth in this charade is that the real reason for giving the ration coupons away is to buy enough political support to pass the bill. Some people are going to become very wealthy from cap-and-trade, but it isn't going to be consumers.
Supporters of Waxman-Markey are now claiming it won't cost anything and have found official support for their claim. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office have estimated that it will cost each of us only pennies to reduce emissions drastically with Waxman-Markey. We can save the planet "for the cost of a postage stamp" a day--or even less.
If that were true, why did Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee defeat Republican amendments to suspend Waxman-Markey if gasoline reached five dollars a gallon or electric rates doubled or unemployment topped fifteen percent?
The debate on the bill is ongoing. Though it has passed the House, it must pass a few more steps before it is forcibly imposed on Americans. Of course, if it's ever enacted, the joke will be on all of us.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Of all the proposals in President Barack Obama's breathtakingly ambitious agenda to foster long-term economic decline, by far the biggest is the Waxman-Markey energy-rationing bill, which the House of Representatives passed with the narrowest of majorities late Friday evening. This bill by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) is more damaging than the $787 billion stimulus, the proposed huge increases in federal spending and corresponding increases in the national debt, the takeover of GM and Chrysler, and the proposed tax hikes on the wealthy - combined. Enacting Waxman-Markey (H. R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act) would almost certainly make America a second-rate economic power. However, the bill is full of ironies and amusing touches. Were it not a looming disaster, the whole situation would be hilarious.
The bill is supposed to be about saving us from global warming. Yet its supporters have stopped talking about global warming. This might be because global temperatures stopped rising a decade ago. More likely it's because the pollsters have told Democrats to shut up about global warming and green jobs. The new slogan: get America running on “clean energy.”
The bill’s advocates view it as merely a first step, as former Vice President Al Gore told “super-activists” (all 11,500 of “us”) on a conference call Tuesday night. It’s the biggest tax increase in the history of the world, the largest government intrusion in people's lives since the Second World War (which was the last time gasoline was rationed) and, at 1,201 pages, a whopper of a bill. Requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 is just the beginning.
The reason given for why it has taken years to pass major climate legislation is the bajillion dollars spent by fat cat corporate special interests--Big Oil, King Coal, etc. But a major push behind Waxman-Markey is the United States Climate Partnership (USCAP), whose members include two dozen or so major corporations (including Duke Energy, Dow, GE, Shell, BP, Ford, GM, Alcoa, PG&E, Exelon, DuPont, PepsiCo, even Caterpillar) and some of the same environmental pressure groups that blame big business for stymieing energy-rationing legislation.
Adding to the irony, the corporate CEOs who support cap-and-trade are fawned over for putting the good of the planet ahead of short-term profits. This is a shameful racket that is all about short-term windfall profits. When testifying before Congress, several CEOs of USCAP member companies said that passing Waxman-Markey was imperative but that they would have to oppose it if they had to buy the ration coupons at auction rather than be given them for free. Al Gore, too, could make hundreds of millions of dollars from his investments in alternative energy companies if Waxman-Markey makes them profitable.
The bill’s proponents talk about protecting consumers while intermittently acknowledging that cap-and-trade can only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by dramatically raising the price of energy derived from coal, oil and natural gas. President Obama said during the campaign last year that "under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Dr. Peter Orszag, now head of the White House Office and Management and Budget, testified last year when he was head of the Congressional Budget Office that "price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program."
When Waxman announced that they had given away 85% of the ration coupons to the various powerful special interests, he added that the purpose was to protect consumers from price increases. If that were true, then consumers would have no reason to reduce their energy consumption, nor would they be forced to use more expensive alternative energy, which would mean that the entire purpose of the bill (the reduction of greenhouse gases) would be rendered moot.
The unacknowledged truth in this charade is that the real reason for giving the ration coupons away is to buy enough political support to pass the bill. Some people are going to become very wealthy from cap-and-trade, but it isn't going to be consumers.
Supporters of Waxman-Markey are now claiming it won't cost anything and have found official support for their claim. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office have estimated that it will cost each of us only pennies to reduce emissions drastically with Waxman-Markey. We can save the planet "for the cost of a postage stamp" a day--or even less.
If that were true, why did Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee defeat Republican amendments to suspend Waxman-Markey if gasoline reached five dollars a gallon or electric rates doubled or unemployment topped fifteen percent?
The debate on the bill is ongoing. Though it has passed the House, it must pass a few more steps before it is forcibly imposed on Americans. Of course, if it's ever enacted, the joke will be on all of us.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
COLUMBIA TENURES AN ISRAEL-BASHER MASSAD
JACOB GERSHMAN, New York Post June 29, 2009
JOSEPH Massad's scholarly contribution during his decade as a faculty member of Columbia University's Middle East Studies Department may be summed up as follows: Israel is racist, and homosexuality is an insidious Western invention. Yet that was enough for Columbia, which officially -- if quietly -- awarded Massad tenure earlier this month. Columbia's process for reviewing tenure candidates is as rigorous as any Ivy League school's. Ordinarily, an academic of Massad's caliber would be bounced from Morningside Heights. And in fact, the system did work -- it denied Massad tenure two years ago. But now the school's academic standards have succumbed to ideological tensions and campus politics -- in what appears to be a remarkable manipulation of the tenure process and a breach of fiduciary trust. First, a little background on Massad. A Christian secularist of Palestinian-Arab descent, Massad has dedicated his academic career primarily to encouraging the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Criticism of Israel is far from unusual in his field, but Massad goes much further, taking arguments to bizarre ends. "The ultimate achievement of Israel," he writes, is "the transformation of the Jew into the anti-Semite, and the Palestinian into the Jew." In a book, he rails against the "Zionist theft of Palestinian Arab food (e.g., hummus, falafel)." In a recent work, "Desiring Arabs," Massad claimed to expose yet another plot against the Muslim world -- the "Gay International." He describes how a vast conspiracy of gay activists descended on Arab countries and endangered the lives of "practitioners of same-sex contact" by transforming them into "subjects who identify as 'homosexual' and 'gay.' " Nor is Massad fond of the women's rights movement, or "colonial feminism," as he calls it. He bristles at the attention paid to the Muslim practice of honor killings, which he likens to "crimes of passion," accusing women's groups of ignoring "rampant Western misogyny."
He specializes in reductio ad hitlerum. "If Germans spent the day on the beach when the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939, and Americans cheered in bars and at home the fireworks light show the US military put up over Baghdad while slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in 1991 and in 2003, Israeli Jews insisted on having front row seats on hills overlooking Gaza for a live show, cracking open champagne bottles and cheering the murder and maiming of thousands of civilians, more than half of whom were women and children," he wrote in a February essay, referring to the Gaza War.
Four years ago, it seemed as if Massad would be on his way out of the Broadway gates. A university probe backed up students' complaints that he disparaged Jewish students who disagreed with him. In one instance, while lecturing near campus, he responded to an Israeli student who asked a question by demanding to know how many Palestinians he had killed. But faculty members opted instead to lionize Massad as a supposed martyr of academic freedom.
A crucial ally for him was Dean of Arts and Sciences Nicholas Dirks, whose wife taught a class with Massad. In 2007, months after Massad completed his latest book, a committee rejected his tenure application. Tenure candidates rarely get a second shot at Columbia, but Dirks intervened and pushed for a second committee, sources say. Oddly, the professor who led the first review of Massad refused to serve again. Even odder, the administration justified the do-over by claiming that Massad had switched his field of specialty from political science to cultural studies. After the second committee approved Massad, President Lee Bollinger and Provost Alan Brinkley took extraordinary measures to protect the secrecy of Massad's tenure case and guard against an outcry from Jewish alumni and donors. The last step in the process was the trustees. The administration refused to share with the trustees any list of who was on the two tenure committees. The board was also kept in the dark as to why Massad failed the first review. Bollinger and Brinkley also refused to discuss in detail why Massad was permitted another shot.
Instead, the administration -- apparently more interested in managing public relations than dealing with the substance of the underlying problem -- simply provided the trustees with a set of talking points with "helpful facts" about the university's Jewish student center. When I tried contacting trustee Esta Stecher, a senior administration official alerted the board about my inquiries and reminded the trustees that the university doesn't comment on tenure cases. In the end, Columbia's board of trustees approved Massad's tenure appointment before ever getting answers. Which raises the question: Just what does a trustee do? Are they merely fund-raisers? Do they view the title as a ceremonial honor? What's the point?
As for Bollinger, one wonders how he allowed his faculty to undermine his authority and the university's reputation. The promotion of Massad isn't a victory for academic freedom but a cheapening of it. The freedom extended to a Columbia faculty member isn't the same as the rights of a soapbox crank. Protecting free inquiry and valuing scholarship are not mutually exclusive goals, but together define the university ideal. If the trustees and Bollinger haven't figured that out, Massad's enduring presence at Columbia will help remind them.
JOSEPH Massad's scholarly contribution during his decade as a faculty member of Columbia University's Middle East Studies Department may be summed up as follows: Israel is racist, and homosexuality is an insidious Western invention. Yet that was enough for Columbia, which officially -- if quietly -- awarded Massad tenure earlier this month. Columbia's process for reviewing tenure candidates is as rigorous as any Ivy League school's. Ordinarily, an academic of Massad's caliber would be bounced from Morningside Heights. And in fact, the system did work -- it denied Massad tenure two years ago. But now the school's academic standards have succumbed to ideological tensions and campus politics -- in what appears to be a remarkable manipulation of the tenure process and a breach of fiduciary trust. First, a little background on Massad. A Christian secularist of Palestinian-Arab descent, Massad has dedicated his academic career primarily to encouraging the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Criticism of Israel is far from unusual in his field, but Massad goes much further, taking arguments to bizarre ends. "The ultimate achievement of Israel," he writes, is "the transformation of the Jew into the anti-Semite, and the Palestinian into the Jew." In a book, he rails against the "Zionist theft of Palestinian Arab food (e.g., hummus, falafel)." In a recent work, "Desiring Arabs," Massad claimed to expose yet another plot against the Muslim world -- the "Gay International." He describes how a vast conspiracy of gay activists descended on Arab countries and endangered the lives of "practitioners of same-sex contact" by transforming them into "subjects who identify as 'homosexual' and 'gay.' " Nor is Massad fond of the women's rights movement, or "colonial feminism," as he calls it. He bristles at the attention paid to the Muslim practice of honor killings, which he likens to "crimes of passion," accusing women's groups of ignoring "rampant Western misogyny."
He specializes in reductio ad hitlerum. "If Germans spent the day on the beach when the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939, and Americans cheered in bars and at home the fireworks light show the US military put up over Baghdad while slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in 1991 and in 2003, Israeli Jews insisted on having front row seats on hills overlooking Gaza for a live show, cracking open champagne bottles and cheering the murder and maiming of thousands of civilians, more than half of whom were women and children," he wrote in a February essay, referring to the Gaza War.
Four years ago, it seemed as if Massad would be on his way out of the Broadway gates. A university probe backed up students' complaints that he disparaged Jewish students who disagreed with him. In one instance, while lecturing near campus, he responded to an Israeli student who asked a question by demanding to know how many Palestinians he had killed. But faculty members opted instead to lionize Massad as a supposed martyr of academic freedom.
A crucial ally for him was Dean of Arts and Sciences Nicholas Dirks, whose wife taught a class with Massad. In 2007, months after Massad completed his latest book, a committee rejected his tenure application. Tenure candidates rarely get a second shot at Columbia, but Dirks intervened and pushed for a second committee, sources say. Oddly, the professor who led the first review of Massad refused to serve again. Even odder, the administration justified the do-over by claiming that Massad had switched his field of specialty from political science to cultural studies. After the second committee approved Massad, President Lee Bollinger and Provost Alan Brinkley took extraordinary measures to protect the secrecy of Massad's tenure case and guard against an outcry from Jewish alumni and donors. The last step in the process was the trustees. The administration refused to share with the trustees any list of who was on the two tenure committees. The board was also kept in the dark as to why Massad failed the first review. Bollinger and Brinkley also refused to discuss in detail why Massad was permitted another shot.
Instead, the administration -- apparently more interested in managing public relations than dealing with the substance of the underlying problem -- simply provided the trustees with a set of talking points with "helpful facts" about the university's Jewish student center. When I tried contacting trustee Esta Stecher, a senior administration official alerted the board about my inquiries and reminded the trustees that the university doesn't comment on tenure cases. In the end, Columbia's board of trustees approved Massad's tenure appointment before ever getting answers. Which raises the question: Just what does a trustee do? Are they merely fund-raisers? Do they view the title as a ceremonial honor? What's the point?
As for Bollinger, one wonders how he allowed his faculty to undermine his authority and the university's reputation. The promotion of Massad isn't a victory for academic freedom but a cheapening of it. The freedom extended to a Columbia faculty member isn't the same as the rights of a soapbox crank. Protecting free inquiry and valuing scholarship are not mutually exclusive goals, but together define the university ideal. If the trustees and Bollinger haven't figured that out, Massad's enduring presence at Columbia will help remind them.
Naivete Enthroned: A CNN editor discovers Islamism is impossible because Islam is good
RubinReports
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/06/naivete-enthroned-cnn-editor-discovers.html
Barry Rubin
Analysis of Middle East events, it often seems, is the worst-managed of all intellectual chores concerning the contemporary world. There are ideological and political barriers that get in the way of accuracy (not to mention fairness); ignorance plays a role, as does fear. But often underlying everything is the fact that when the Middle East knocks at the door, common sense jumps out the back window.Consider a blog posting entitled, “CNN journalist asks: `'Punished mercilessly'–Is this Islam?’" I don’t write this to attack the author—whose intentions are clearly good ones--but merely to ask how people examine the regional issues. What makes this interesting is that the author is Octavia Nasr, Middle East Affairs editor for CNN, in other words a person who has a great deal to do with what appears on that channel and how it’s presented.
Nasr’s basic argument is that the Iranian regime’s repression of anti-government demonstrators is contrary to Islam. One should begin by noting that in the fictional world wherein we live today, a huge amount of attention is paid to the idea that Islam is treated worse (“Islamophobia”) than other religions or doctrines in terms of its intellectual and analytical examination. In fact, it is treated far better almost all of the time. It should be treated the same.
Nasr begins by quoting an Iranian cleric at a Friday prayer sermon who calls on supporters to “Annihilate the rioters” who “should be punished mercilessly.” The cleric also notes that they are acting contrary to the decisions of Iran’s supreme guide who is acting according to God’s design in this world. Nasr wants to argue that this behavior is contrary to Islam.
Ironically, Nasr calls him a “fundamentalist,” a word that simultaneously could get her labeled an Islamophobe under other circumstances and simultaneously reinforces the cleric’s own argument. After all, if he is getting back to Islam’s “fundamentals” that means he is returning to the proper roots of the religion, right? So the choice of words implies that he is correct. That’s why I never use that word and prefer Islamist, someone who uses their interpretation of Islam as a political doctrine.
“Some would say,” she continues, “those words couldn’t be more un-Islamic.” True. But others would say—including the government of Iran—that they couldn’t be more Islamic. This is what the great battle in the Middle East is about: which interpretation of Islam will prevail.
Arguing among non-Muslims which one is more “correct” is a wasted effort. There is no right answer. How Christians interpret their religion with utter certitude in 2009 is not the same as it was in 1009. Islam is neither a religion of peace nor the opposite. It is a body of holy writings, commentaries, practices, and history—just like other religions—which must be examined dispassionately as to how it functions in the world, among different groups, and in different places.
Nasr writes: “The entire religion is based on surrendering” all aspect of oneself to `god.' (sic)....When moderate Muslims hear what this Mullah has called for, they wonder which brand of Islam he is advocating.”
Really? They wonder? The implication here is that Islam has never been used as a tool of repression in history; that it is astonishing someone might insist that he has the proper answer and everyone else must bow to that or suffer.
Christianity is arguably a religion of love—consider the “Sermon on the Mount,” yet how has it been used historically? And if someone dares, in many nominally Christian circles, say something positive about Christianity, how many seconds will it be before someone brings up the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition?
Nasr points out that the most basic Muslim creed refers to God as “most merciful, most compassionate.” So where, she asks, is the mercy in this cleric’s statement?
Simple and it should quickly come to mind for anyone but the simple-minded. God also has commandments and in Islam it is clearly stated that believers should forbid what the deity doesn’t want and promote what the deity does want. And that’s precisely what this cleric says—and believes—he’s doing.
Nasr then goes on to support the opposition movement, extolling their courage and condemning the attempts to block reporting of what’s happening in Iran. This is all fine, leaving aside the question of whether an editor at a news channel should personally and openly take sides.
Frankly, I find this disturbing even if I think the cause is a good one. Journalists are supposed to be as neutral as possible. If they are reporting on something evil, they don’t have to take a personal stance on it. Just report the facts and assuming you’re right the reader or viewer will draw the appropriate conclusion. Alas, this kind of thinking about journalism is as dead as the dodo or the steam locomotive.
The problem, of course, is that once journalists decide to support one cause you might agree is a good one, they then go off backing a dozen others which don’t fit into that category. It sounds good that the poor, the “victimized,” and the “underdog” should be supported. But before you can say “suicide bomber” or “populist dictatorship,” that definition has come to encompass some dreadful things.
Yet what’s really bizarre about Nasr’s approach is that she speaks as if this cleric's statement is something new, that suddenly a single call for using violence in the name of Islam is some shocking innovation.
But the Islamist regime in Iran has been in power for 30 years, doing precisely what it is doing today. Islamism—which rather explicitly bases itself on a vision of Islam—has been in business for even longer. The Iranian regime has executed hundreds of people over the years, tortured many more by defining their activities as being against proper Islam.
Meanwhile, thousands of terrorist attacks have been staged, tens of thousands of innocent civilians murdered in the name of Islam. The Saudi religious police go about their business; the Taliban terrorized Afghanistan. Writers are intimidated or killed, women who step out of line are murdered, and genocide against the Jews is advocated.
And if we go back to past centuries we can find no shortage of occasions when Islam has been the basis of repression, aggressive warfare, and other such things.
So why suddenly is a cleric calling for putting down an opposition to a stolen election the beginning of a discovery on these matters?
And how can a non-Muslim confidentally state that the actions of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, including top clerics who have spent their life studying Islam are just flatly wrong?
Of course, she could say that there are two camps and she prefers the moderate one wins. She can cite many Muslims who do have a different interpretation of their religion (and are sometimes repressed or even murdered for having expressed it). But to say that a high proportion of actually living, breathing Muslims have just arrived from another planet with no connection to anything in their own religion isn't going to work.
Equally of course, it is better that such a discovery about what's going on in the world is being made. But let’s face it. The reason for the shock now is that the people being so repressed:
--Look like us in terms of their clothing and mannerisms because they are urban, middle class, and visibly Westernized in mannerisms and clothing.
--Are on television and computer.
--Are engaging in activities (peaceful mass demonstrations) on behalf of a cause (fair elections) which we can imagine ourselves doing and supporting.
The author, who is from a strongly Christian background in Lebanon, must be most familiar with the operations of Hizballah and the civil war there.
Nasr has a special interest in theatre, including having acted herself on the stage. If she were a Muslim woman, acting in a play might have been sufficient to inspire her family to murder her (in an urban middle class Beirut Sunni family, unlikely of course but the point still applies) or certainly she would have been intimidated enough not to try. Could she possibly be unaware of this fact?
What we should be talking about is not the purity of Islam but the battle within Islam and the aggressive efforts of radical Islamists against others. Islam is being used—you can say abused if you want--in Iran and by other groups whose activities affect millions of people, from stoning in Afghanistan or Somalia, to decapitations in Thailand, to suicide bombings even in Spain, Britain, and on the New York skyline.
The article is entitled, "'Punished mercilessly'–Is this Islam?" In your or my preferred interpretation, perhaps not. But of course this is nothing new and also something extraordinarily important. One might better use the title: “`Punished mercilessly’—This is Islamism.”
If Nasr were a mere academic, it would not be so surprising. But for a top journalist, to show such a naïve view of the world as well as of the workings of ideology, power, and politics is frightening..
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/06/naivete-enthroned-cnn-editor-discovers.html
Barry Rubin
Analysis of Middle East events, it often seems, is the worst-managed of all intellectual chores concerning the contemporary world. There are ideological and political barriers that get in the way of accuracy (not to mention fairness); ignorance plays a role, as does fear. But often underlying everything is the fact that when the Middle East knocks at the door, common sense jumps out the back window.Consider a blog posting entitled, “CNN journalist asks: `'Punished mercilessly'–Is this Islam?’" I don’t write this to attack the author—whose intentions are clearly good ones--but merely to ask how people examine the regional issues. What makes this interesting is that the author is Octavia Nasr, Middle East Affairs editor for CNN, in other words a person who has a great deal to do with what appears on that channel and how it’s presented.
Nasr’s basic argument is that the Iranian regime’s repression of anti-government demonstrators is contrary to Islam. One should begin by noting that in the fictional world wherein we live today, a huge amount of attention is paid to the idea that Islam is treated worse (“Islamophobia”) than other religions or doctrines in terms of its intellectual and analytical examination. In fact, it is treated far better almost all of the time. It should be treated the same.
Nasr begins by quoting an Iranian cleric at a Friday prayer sermon who calls on supporters to “Annihilate the rioters” who “should be punished mercilessly.” The cleric also notes that they are acting contrary to the decisions of Iran’s supreme guide who is acting according to God’s design in this world. Nasr wants to argue that this behavior is contrary to Islam.
Ironically, Nasr calls him a “fundamentalist,” a word that simultaneously could get her labeled an Islamophobe under other circumstances and simultaneously reinforces the cleric’s own argument. After all, if he is getting back to Islam’s “fundamentals” that means he is returning to the proper roots of the religion, right? So the choice of words implies that he is correct. That’s why I never use that word and prefer Islamist, someone who uses their interpretation of Islam as a political doctrine.
“Some would say,” she continues, “those words couldn’t be more un-Islamic.” True. But others would say—including the government of Iran—that they couldn’t be more Islamic. This is what the great battle in the Middle East is about: which interpretation of Islam will prevail.
Arguing among non-Muslims which one is more “correct” is a wasted effort. There is no right answer. How Christians interpret their religion with utter certitude in 2009 is not the same as it was in 1009. Islam is neither a religion of peace nor the opposite. It is a body of holy writings, commentaries, practices, and history—just like other religions—which must be examined dispassionately as to how it functions in the world, among different groups, and in different places.
Nasr writes: “The entire religion is based on surrendering” all aspect of oneself to `god.' (sic)....When moderate Muslims hear what this Mullah has called for, they wonder which brand of Islam he is advocating.”
Really? They wonder? The implication here is that Islam has never been used as a tool of repression in history; that it is astonishing someone might insist that he has the proper answer and everyone else must bow to that or suffer.
Christianity is arguably a religion of love—consider the “Sermon on the Mount,” yet how has it been used historically? And if someone dares, in many nominally Christian circles, say something positive about Christianity, how many seconds will it be before someone brings up the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition?
Nasr points out that the most basic Muslim creed refers to God as “most merciful, most compassionate.” So where, she asks, is the mercy in this cleric’s statement?
Simple and it should quickly come to mind for anyone but the simple-minded. God also has commandments and in Islam it is clearly stated that believers should forbid what the deity doesn’t want and promote what the deity does want. And that’s precisely what this cleric says—and believes—he’s doing.
Nasr then goes on to support the opposition movement, extolling their courage and condemning the attempts to block reporting of what’s happening in Iran. This is all fine, leaving aside the question of whether an editor at a news channel should personally and openly take sides.
Frankly, I find this disturbing even if I think the cause is a good one. Journalists are supposed to be as neutral as possible. If they are reporting on something evil, they don’t have to take a personal stance on it. Just report the facts and assuming you’re right the reader or viewer will draw the appropriate conclusion. Alas, this kind of thinking about journalism is as dead as the dodo or the steam locomotive.
The problem, of course, is that once journalists decide to support one cause you might agree is a good one, they then go off backing a dozen others which don’t fit into that category. It sounds good that the poor, the “victimized,” and the “underdog” should be supported. But before you can say “suicide bomber” or “populist dictatorship,” that definition has come to encompass some dreadful things.
Yet what’s really bizarre about Nasr’s approach is that she speaks as if this cleric's statement is something new, that suddenly a single call for using violence in the name of Islam is some shocking innovation.
But the Islamist regime in Iran has been in power for 30 years, doing precisely what it is doing today. Islamism—which rather explicitly bases itself on a vision of Islam—has been in business for even longer. The Iranian regime has executed hundreds of people over the years, tortured many more by defining their activities as being against proper Islam.
Meanwhile, thousands of terrorist attacks have been staged, tens of thousands of innocent civilians murdered in the name of Islam. The Saudi religious police go about their business; the Taliban terrorized Afghanistan. Writers are intimidated or killed, women who step out of line are murdered, and genocide against the Jews is advocated.
And if we go back to past centuries we can find no shortage of occasions when Islam has been the basis of repression, aggressive warfare, and other such things.
So why suddenly is a cleric calling for putting down an opposition to a stolen election the beginning of a discovery on these matters?
And how can a non-Muslim confidentally state that the actions of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, including top clerics who have spent their life studying Islam are just flatly wrong?
Of course, she could say that there are two camps and she prefers the moderate one wins. She can cite many Muslims who do have a different interpretation of their religion (and are sometimes repressed or even murdered for having expressed it). But to say that a high proportion of actually living, breathing Muslims have just arrived from another planet with no connection to anything in their own religion isn't going to work.
Equally of course, it is better that such a discovery about what's going on in the world is being made. But let’s face it. The reason for the shock now is that the people being so repressed:
--Look like us in terms of their clothing and mannerisms because they are urban, middle class, and visibly Westernized in mannerisms and clothing.
--Are on television and computer.
--Are engaging in activities (peaceful mass demonstrations) on behalf of a cause (fair elections) which we can imagine ourselves doing and supporting.
The author, who is from a strongly Christian background in Lebanon, must be most familiar with the operations of Hizballah and the civil war there.
Nasr has a special interest in theatre, including having acted herself on the stage. If she were a Muslim woman, acting in a play might have been sufficient to inspire her family to murder her (in an urban middle class Beirut Sunni family, unlikely of course but the point still applies) or certainly she would have been intimidated enough not to try. Could she possibly be unaware of this fact?
What we should be talking about is not the purity of Islam but the battle within Islam and the aggressive efforts of radical Islamists against others. Islam is being used—you can say abused if you want--in Iran and by other groups whose activities affect millions of people, from stoning in Afghanistan or Somalia, to decapitations in Thailand, to suicide bombings even in Spain, Britain, and on the New York skyline.
The article is entitled, "'Punished mercilessly'–Is this Islam?" In your or my preferred interpretation, perhaps not. But of course this is nothing new and also something extraordinarily important. One might better use the title: “`Punished mercilessly’—This is Islamism.”
If Nasr were a mere academic, it would not be so surprising. But for a top journalist, to show such a naïve view of the world as well as of the workings of ideology, power, and politics is frightening..
Where is Everyone?
Ma’ariv - Israel (Monday, June 22, 09) by Ben Caspit and Ben-Dror Yemini (opinion) –
Tell us, where is everyone? Where did all the people who demonstrated against Israel’s brutality in Operation Cast Lead, in the Second Lebanon War, in Operation Defensive Shield, or even in The Hague, when we were dragged there unwillingly after daring to build a separation barrier between us and the suicide bombers, disappear to? We see demonstrations here and there, but these are mainly Iranian exiles. Europe, in principle, is peaceful and calm. So is the United States. Here and there a few dozens, here and there a few hundreds. Have they evaporated because it is Tehran and not here? All the peace-loving and justice-loving Europeans, British professors in search of freedom and equality, the friends filling the newspapers, magazines and various academic journals with various demands for boycotting Israel, defaming Zionism and blaming us and it for all the ills and woes of the world—could it be that they have taken a long summer vacation? Now of all times, when the Basij hooligans have begun to slaughter innocent civilians in the city squares of Tehran? Aren’t they connected to the Internet? Don’t they have YouTube? Has a terrible virus struck down their computer? Have their justice glands been removed in a complicated surgical procedure (to be re-implanted successfully for the next confrontation in Gaza)? How can it be that when a Jew kills a Muslim, the entire world boils, and when extremist Islam slaughters its citizens, whose sole sin is the aspiration to freedom, the world is silent?
Imagine that this were not happening now in Tehran, but rather here. Let’s say in Nablus. Spontaneous demonstrations of Palestinians turning into an ongoing bloodbath. Border Policemen armed with knives, on motorcycles, butchering demonstrators. A young woman downed by a sniper in midday, dying before the cameras. Actually, why imagine? We can just recall what happened with the child Mohammed a-Dura. How the affair (which was very harsh, admittedly) swept the world from one end to another. The fact that a later independent investigative report raised tough questions as to the identity of the weapon from which a-Dura was shot, did not make a difference to anyone. The Zionists were to blame, and that was that.
And where are the world’s leaders? Where is the wondrous rhetorical ability of Barack Obama? Where has his sublime vocabulary gone? Where is the desire, that is supposed to be built into all American presidents, to defend and act on behalf of freedom seekers around the globe? What is this stammering?
A source who is connected to the Iranian and security situation, said yesterday that if Obama had shown on the Iranian matter a quarter of the determination with which he assaulted the settlements in the territories, everything would have looked different. “The demonstrators in Iran are desperate for help,” said the man, who served in very senior positions for many years, “they need to know that they have backing, that there is an entire world that supports them, but instead they see indifference. And this is happening at such a critical stage of this battle for the soul of Iran and the freedom of the Iranian people. It’s sad.”
Or the European Union, for example. The organization that speaks of justice and peace all year round. Why should its leaders not declare clearly that the world wants to see a democratic and free Iran, and support it unreservedly? Could it be that the tongue of too many Europeans is still connected to dark places? The pathetic excuse that such support would give Khamenei and Ahmadinejad an excuse to call the demonstrators “Western agents,” does not hold water. They call them “Western agents” in any case, so what difference does it make?
To think that just six months ago, when Europe was flooded with demonstrations against Israel, leftists and Islamists raised pictures of Nasrallah, the protégé of the ayatollah regime. The fact that this was a benighted regime did not trouble them. This is madness, but it is sinking in and influencing the weary West. If there is a truly free world here, let it appear immediately! And impose sanctions, for example, on those who slaughter the members of their own people. Just as it imposed them on North Korea, or on the military regime in Burma. It is only a question of will, not of ability.
Apparently, something happens to the global adherence to justice and equality, when it comes to Iran. The oppression is overt and known. The Internet era broadcasts everything live, and it is all for the better. Hooligans acting on behalf of the regime shoot and stab masses of demonstrators, who cry out for freedom.
Is anything more needed? Apparently it is. Because it is to no avail. The West remains indifferent. Obama is polite. Why shouldn’t he be, after all, he aspires to a dialogue with the ayatollahs. And that is very fine and good, the problem is that at this stage there is no dialogue, but there is death and murder on the streets. At this stage, one must forget the rules of etiquette for a moment. The voices being heard from Obama elicit concern that we are actually dealing with a new version of Chamberlain. Being conciliatory is a positive trait, particularly when it follows the clumsy bellicosity of George Bush, but when conciliation becomes blindness, we have a problem.
The courageous voice of Angela Merkel, who issued yesterday a firm statement of support for the Iranian people and its right to freedom, is in the meantime a lone voice in the Western wilderness. It is only a shame that she has not announced an economic boycott, in light of the fact that this is the European country that is most invested in building infrastructure in Iran. She was joined by British Foreign Secretary Miliband. It is little, it is late, it is not enough. Millions of freedom seekers have taken to the streets in Iran, and the West is straddling the fence, one leg here, the other leg there.
There is a different Islam. This is already clear today. Even in Iran. There are millions of Muslims who support freedom, human rights, equality for women. These millions loathe Khamenei, Chavez and Nasrallah too. But part of the global left wing prefers the ayatollah regime over them. The main thing is for them to raise flags against Israel and America. The question is why the democrats, the liberals, and Obama, Blair and Sarkozy, are continuing to sit on the fence. This is not a fence of separation, it is a fence of shame.
Tell us, where is everyone? Where did all the people who demonstrated against Israel’s brutality in Operation Cast Lead, in the Second Lebanon War, in Operation Defensive Shield, or even in The Hague, when we were dragged there unwillingly after daring to build a separation barrier between us and the suicide bombers, disappear to? We see demonstrations here and there, but these are mainly Iranian exiles. Europe, in principle, is peaceful and calm. So is the United States. Here and there a few dozens, here and there a few hundreds. Have they evaporated because it is Tehran and not here? All the peace-loving and justice-loving Europeans, British professors in search of freedom and equality, the friends filling the newspapers, magazines and various academic journals with various demands for boycotting Israel, defaming Zionism and blaming us and it for all the ills and woes of the world—could it be that they have taken a long summer vacation? Now of all times, when the Basij hooligans have begun to slaughter innocent civilians in the city squares of Tehran? Aren’t they connected to the Internet? Don’t they have YouTube? Has a terrible virus struck down their computer? Have their justice glands been removed in a complicated surgical procedure (to be re-implanted successfully for the next confrontation in Gaza)? How can it be that when a Jew kills a Muslim, the entire world boils, and when extremist Islam slaughters its citizens, whose sole sin is the aspiration to freedom, the world is silent?
Imagine that this were not happening now in Tehran, but rather here. Let’s say in Nablus. Spontaneous demonstrations of Palestinians turning into an ongoing bloodbath. Border Policemen armed with knives, on motorcycles, butchering demonstrators. A young woman downed by a sniper in midday, dying before the cameras. Actually, why imagine? We can just recall what happened with the child Mohammed a-Dura. How the affair (which was very harsh, admittedly) swept the world from one end to another. The fact that a later independent investigative report raised tough questions as to the identity of the weapon from which a-Dura was shot, did not make a difference to anyone. The Zionists were to blame, and that was that.
And where are the world’s leaders? Where is the wondrous rhetorical ability of Barack Obama? Where has his sublime vocabulary gone? Where is the desire, that is supposed to be built into all American presidents, to defend and act on behalf of freedom seekers around the globe? What is this stammering?
A source who is connected to the Iranian and security situation, said yesterday that if Obama had shown on the Iranian matter a quarter of the determination with which he assaulted the settlements in the territories, everything would have looked different. “The demonstrators in Iran are desperate for help,” said the man, who served in very senior positions for many years, “they need to know that they have backing, that there is an entire world that supports them, but instead they see indifference. And this is happening at such a critical stage of this battle for the soul of Iran and the freedom of the Iranian people. It’s sad.”
Or the European Union, for example. The organization that speaks of justice and peace all year round. Why should its leaders not declare clearly that the world wants to see a democratic and free Iran, and support it unreservedly? Could it be that the tongue of too many Europeans is still connected to dark places? The pathetic excuse that such support would give Khamenei and Ahmadinejad an excuse to call the demonstrators “Western agents,” does not hold water. They call them “Western agents” in any case, so what difference does it make?
To think that just six months ago, when Europe was flooded with demonstrations against Israel, leftists and Islamists raised pictures of Nasrallah, the protégé of the ayatollah regime. The fact that this was a benighted regime did not trouble them. This is madness, but it is sinking in and influencing the weary West. If there is a truly free world here, let it appear immediately! And impose sanctions, for example, on those who slaughter the members of their own people. Just as it imposed them on North Korea, or on the military regime in Burma. It is only a question of will, not of ability.
Apparently, something happens to the global adherence to justice and equality, when it comes to Iran. The oppression is overt and known. The Internet era broadcasts everything live, and it is all for the better. Hooligans acting on behalf of the regime shoot and stab masses of demonstrators, who cry out for freedom.
Is anything more needed? Apparently it is. Because it is to no avail. The West remains indifferent. Obama is polite. Why shouldn’t he be, after all, he aspires to a dialogue with the ayatollahs. And that is very fine and good, the problem is that at this stage there is no dialogue, but there is death and murder on the streets. At this stage, one must forget the rules of etiquette for a moment. The voices being heard from Obama elicit concern that we are actually dealing with a new version of Chamberlain. Being conciliatory is a positive trait, particularly when it follows the clumsy bellicosity of George Bush, but when conciliation becomes blindness, we have a problem.
The courageous voice of Angela Merkel, who issued yesterday a firm statement of support for the Iranian people and its right to freedom, is in the meantime a lone voice in the Western wilderness. It is only a shame that she has not announced an economic boycott, in light of the fact that this is the European country that is most invested in building infrastructure in Iran. She was joined by British Foreign Secretary Miliband. It is little, it is late, it is not enough. Millions of freedom seekers have taken to the streets in Iran, and the West is straddling the fence, one leg here, the other leg there.
There is a different Islam. This is already clear today. Even in Iran. There are millions of Muslims who support freedom, human rights, equality for women. These millions loathe Khamenei, Chavez and Nasrallah too. But part of the global left wing prefers the ayatollah regime over them. The main thing is for them to raise flags against Israel and America. The question is why the democrats, the liberals, and Obama, Blair and Sarkozy, are continuing to sit on the fence. This is not a fence of separation, it is a fence of shame.
Iran Early Bird
HerFull Report
Protest Update
1. Iran has detained eight local staff at the British embassy in Tehran on accusations of having a role in post-election riots - The embassy has not yet confirmed the report from the semi-official Fars news agency, which did not name its source. Relations between the countries are strained after Tehran accused the UK of inflaming unrest, which London denies. Some 17 people are thought to have died in street protests after the disputed 12 June presidential poll. Tehran has expelled two British diplomats in the past week, and the UK has responded with a similar measure. There is no independent confirmation of the latest arrests. "Eight local employees at the British embassy who had a considerable role in recent unrest were taken into custody," Fars said, without giving a source. The UK Foreign Office said in London: "We have in the last few days received a number of, sometimes confused, reports that British nationals or others with British connections have been detained. We continue to raise them with the Iranian authorities." Karroubi proposes rally competition – Speaking over the weekend to editors at the Etemad-e Melli daily, defeated presidential candidate Karroubi said he had a proposal for Ahmadinejad – for each of the two political camps to stage a rally, at the same time, in different areas of the capital and with the approval of the Interior Ministry. The president-elect, Karoubie said, would then see who draws the largest show of support, the Principlists or the Reformists.
3. Interior Ministry sets conditions for demonstration – The Iranian Interior Ministry has announced that requests regarding the staging of demonstrations or rallies must be submitted at least a week in advance, in person, and with other guarantees too. The head of the Reformist Front’s headquarters said that the organization had already submitted a request to hold a quiet demonstration in Zazadi Square at which Mousavi would speak.
4. Candle light vigil at Tehran University - video
5. Arrests of students continue
a. The Amir Kabir University’s student website is reporting that security forces have arrested a large number of the institute’s students in recent days, with many of them also receiving telephone threats. Three Students Union members were detained on their return to their dorms, and although they have been allowed brief contact with their families, they were not allowed to say where they are being held.
b. Pro-Karroubi student activists were reportedly arrested in Hormozgan, Hamedan and Karaj.
c. Mojtaba Mohammadian, a prominent student activist from Tehran, was arrested on Saturday and transferred to an unknown location. Mohammadian used to be a student at Babol Open University before he was suspended from his studies some three years due to his political activity.
6. An unconfirmed report claims that the regime has created a camp south of Tehran to house hundreds of detainees of the recent unrests in Tehran.
7. Prisoners’ rights group criticizes arrests – According to the Iranian Prisoners’ Rights Association, the recent widespread arrests in the country have been carried out without any regard for the law and human rights. The association pledged its readiness to deal with all matters pertaining to detainees and missing individuals and called on the families to come forward with their cases.
8. IRGC presents: identify the protester - Revolutionary Guards’ website posts photos of alleged protest leaders and asks the public for assistance to identify the individuals.
9. Kurdish youth dies of injuries – A Kurdish-minority youth, Arash Salavati, who had been in a coma for several days after he was injured in the recent unrest in Tehran, died of his injuries over the weekend.
10. Body of missing student found – The body of Kyanoush Asa, a Kermanshah University student who disappeared a week ago, has been located at the Forensic Medicine Institute, where officials are refusing to hand over the corpse to the family.
11. Rumors of death of Saeid Hajarian rejected – The wife of senior Reformist theoretician, Saeid Hajarian, has denied recent rumors of his death in detention. She noted, however, that his physical condition was cause for much concern. Hajarian was left handicapped following an attempt on his life in the past.
12. Etemad-e Melli editor-in-chief summoned to court – Etemad-e Melli editor-in-chief Mohammad Javad Haq has been summoned to the court for state employees and the press to provide testimony regarding open cases against the newspaper.
13. Security forces seizing satellite dishes – Tehran residents are reporting that security forces have again started seizing satellite dishes from the roofs of buildings in the capital’s neighborhoods. According to the reports, the forces are knocking on people’s doors and ordering them to immediately take down the dishes. Many Iranian citizens use satellite dishes to pick up television broadcasts from abroad.
14. Basij militiamen shooting from rooftops – Aljazeera video
The Political Scene
15. Mir Hossein Mousavi formally rejected the government’s offer for a partial recount - Mir Hossein Mousavi formally rejected the government’s offer for a partial recount of the ballots cast in the 12 June disputed presidential election. Mousavi again demanded a full re-run of the election. "Limiting the probe into complaints about electoral irregularities to recounting 10 percent of the ballot boxes cannot attract people's trust and convince public opinion about the results," Mousavi said on his campaign website Ghalamnews.ir. "I insist again on cancelling the election results as the most suitable way out of the problem," Mousavi said. In a letter to the Guardian Council, Mir Hossein Mousavi, insisted that the entire election process was fraught with numerous violations of important articles of Iran’s election laws and, therefore, there was no way to rectify the situation other than annulment of the election and holding a new one.
16. Election-review committee set up – Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, spokesman for the Council of Guardians, has announced the establishment of a special committee that will review the election process. He said that Mousavi and Karroubi would name their representatives on the committee within the next 24 hours. The spokesman added that 10 percent of the polling boxes would be recounted in the presence of representatives of the candidates. Karroubi, meanwhile, has said that he would agree to name a representative to the committee on condition that two of the panel members are replaced and that all complaints and problems are dealt with. The two men Karroubi wants replaced were appointed by the Council of Guardians and he claims that they are not objective.
17. Larijani threatened with a vote of no confidence - Ahmadinejad supporters have threatened Larijani with a vote of no confidence because of Larijani’s allegedly indirect support to Mousavi.
18. Expediency Council Urges Guardian Council and losing candidates to comply with law - The Expediency Council has urged the Guardian Council as an election monitoring body
to resolve the disputes, disagreement, and ambiguities is compliance with the law. In the light of the Supreme Leaders agreement to extend the deadline for reviewing the presidential candidates complaints, the GC is expected to deal with all complaints and address the remaining issues. All presidential candidates are asked to fully cooperate with the Guardian Council and take this opportunity to submit their documents and evidence for comprehensive and thorough examination. In this regard Hashemi-Rafanjani will issue a statement in support of the leader.
19. Senior sources of emulation meet secretly – Senior ayatollahs and sources of emulation in Iran, including Ayatollah Safi Golpayegani and Ayatollah Shabiri Zanjani, have met secretly on numerous occasions in recent days in an effort to find a solution to the post-election problems in the country.
20. Ayatollah Ardebili: The recent events have weakened the regime – In a meeting with members of the Council of Guardians, senior source of emulation Ayatollah Mousavi Ardebili said that the recent events in the country in the wake of the elections have been very distressing and have weakened the regime. Ardebili spoke of the need to allow the people to have their say and to solve all problems.
21. Grand Ayatollah Montazeri urges leadership to refrain from violence, equates security forces to “the mercenaries of the shah” – Senior source of emulation Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has issued a statement in which he harshly criticizes the Iranian leadership and the violence being used against demonstrators. Montazeri also calls on the leadership to avoid undermining the trust of the public. Montazeri: “Just 30 years after the victory of the revolution, and with the scenes from the fall of the previous regime still in the memory of the public, Tehran and some of the big cities have become a large military base. This mistaken policy pits the military and security personnel against the people, and the plain-clothed individuals are reminiscent of the mercenaries of the shah.”
22. Grand Ayatollah Makram Shirazi calls to resolve Iran's presidential election dispute through "national conciliation" - Grand Ayatollah Naser Makram Shiraziissued a statement recalling the "Extremely bitter events have occurred in the days following the magnificent 10th (presidential) election, and certain adventurists took advantage of the disputes between the honorable candidates…recent events have caused deep regret and sorrow in all Iranians loyal to the Islamic establishment and the revolution,... gladdened the enemy…Under these circumstances, where both our friends and enemies are observing the situation in our country, it is incumbent upon us to fully maintain calm and not to allow adventurists to disturb public order and destroy public and private property, and, as the great Leader of the Islamic Revolution has emphasized, the problems must be solved through legal means…Definitively, something must be done to ensure that there are no embers burning under the ashes, and (to ensure) that hostilities, antagonism and rivalries are transformed into amity and cooperation among all parties." Naser Makarem Shirazi called on rival parties to show self-restraint, to resolve the problems rationally and to bear in mind the future of the countryand to be prepared for "a national reconciliation".
23. Khomeini institute denies report about grandson’s opposition leanings – A Russian news agency reported Friday that the grandson of Imam Khomeini, Hassan Khomeini, has joined the ranks of the Iranian opposition and has invited Reformist activists to assemble at the grave of his grandfather. The item was not carried by the Iranian media, but the institute responsible for publishing Imam Khomeini’s writings decided nevertheless to comment on the report and reject it.
24. Harsh message delivered at Friday prayers by Hojjat ol-Eslam Seyyed Ahmad Khatami, member of the Assembly of Experts, in Tehran - domestic message (for attacks on foreign governments see the ‘Diplomatic Scene’):
a. The leader can fight and destroy whoever acts against the Islamic system; Calls on the officials of the Judicial Branch to deal severely and ruthlessly with the leaders of the agitations, whose fodder comes from America and Israel - “Unauthorized demonstrations are both against the law and against the Islamic law. However, agitations, destructive acts, setting fire to mosques and buses, destroying people's property, creating insecurity and terror, and harassing people can be described in two ways from the viewpoint of our jurisprudence…Whoever acts against the Islamic system, the imam, the leader of the Islamic community, can fight and destroy whoever acts against the Islamic system…Anyone who takes up arms, be it guns or knives, is a muharib (one who wages war against God - TG)…Islam has said that a muharib should receive the severest of punishments. Accordingly, I call on the officials of the Judicial Branch to deal severely and ruthlessly with the leaders of the agitations, whose fodder comes from America and Israel, so that everyone learns a lesson from it”.
b. Gratitude to all police and security forces, especially the members of the Basij force – “The members of the Basij force have been working hard during the wartime and now. They have sacrificed a lot”.
c. Election turnout showed the power and grandeur of the system – “It was a symbol of our religious democracy, which materialized although the Global Arrogance, with its pre-planned agendas, made the sweet taste of victory bitter for our people with their inappropriate behavior the story didn't start after the election, they had planned it well before”.
d. The winning candidate should dedicate his soul to loving everyone, losers should close ranks - both those who voted for him and those who didn't and the candidates who did not manage to win the majority of votes should be patient and should act logically. Take a look at the enemies being so happy with this situation. Friends of the Islamic Revolution, not only inside Iran but also everywhere in the world, are being hurt.”
e. Iran is the bearer of religious democracy – “Iran showed that it is the flag bearer of religious democracy. Holding more than 30 elections in 30 years is the best example of religious democracy…they have the legal right to protest, but say that the right channel should be chosen (to express the objection). The Guardian Council showed that it accepts complaints openly and even extended the complaint period by five days to remove any ambiguity”.
f. Rule of law - “We must accept that a country without the rule of law is a jungle. If we want our country to be organized, the only way is to abide by the law. Everyone should submit to law. The people who voted for the constitution expect the law to be enforced”.
g. Act in accordance with the law and logic – “Bearing in mind the fourth point about the rule of law, the annulment of the elections and throwing the very essence of elections into question, in the view of the leader, is considered bullying and the nation will not submit to bullying. If you have problems with a few boxes, you should express your objection, and then if the elections are annulled as a result, then, so be it…Some of these esteemed candidates had more than 40,000 representatives at every branch, something that is unprecedented in the Islamic Republic, and they still talk about vote rigging…They should raise issues in accordance with the law, act in accordance with the law and logic, and then whatever happens, happens”.
The Diplomatic Scene
25. Ahmadinejad: From now on we will change our stance in our talks with the west ; Iran has turned into a nuclear state with aerospace technology; Obama should not to fall to the same trap as the Europeans and should not follow in President Bush’s footsteps.
a. “International relations need to change and will change, and the election is the start of this process. The enemies thought they could destroy the power of the Iranian nation with their negative propaganda, but today we will take a new position when we talk to them… "These (anti-Iranian) stances are the result of their fear from the epic presence of the Iranian people in the arena and from disclosure of their false claims about democracy…Iranian nation will hold talks with the Westerners with absolute honor, and of course based on principles, logic, and justice …” Pointing out the recent stances of President Obama: "We do not expect anything from the British and the European countries' governments, which are not honorable and their history is known to the world. But why has Mr Obama been caught up in this trap, though he carries the slogan of change. And he is following the same path as Bush, who suffered the …I advise you to stop this kind of behavior”
b. Despite the imposition of the heaviest sanctions, including blocking the activities of banks and military threats against Iran, Iran has turned into a nuclear state with aerospace technology and it has made progress in the nanotechnology arena, industries and developmental projects much more than before;
c. Freedom is being practiced in Iran. “What is taking place in the European countries, and what is this unpopular democracy which is governing America and Europe? Do you know that people in America and Europe have no right to choose, and are restricted to choose from two or three parties. They do not have a big role in political affairs or in deciding their own destiny”
26. Ahmadinejad: west will be treated more powerfully during second term - Ahmadinejad addressing a judiciary forum referred to the role of certain western countries in the recent post-election unrests in Iran, and said, "They imagined they could impair the spirit of the Iranian nation but they were mistaken again because they have not understood the Iranian nation…If they have conceived that the (Iranian) government would be affected by them, they should know that we will treat them more powerfully in this (presidential second) term.
27. Iran urges UN Secretary General to avoid interference in its domestic affairs; Iran's first vice president denied visa to the UN - Iran's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Mohammad Khazaee criticized in a letter UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon remarks on Iran's presidential election It is regretful that the UN Secretary General, in breach of the duties entrusted to him and also in violation of the known international principles, has taken a hasty stance on the Islamic Republic of Iran's recent magnificent election…This stance is considered as interference in the Islamic Republic of Iran's internal affairs…Over the past few days, some western officials have raised improper claims on the recent election in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are considered as an meddling in our country's internal affairs…The UN Chief has jeopardized his credit before the world's independent nations by following the said (western) officials”. Khazaee also asked the UN Secretary General to maintain his independence and position as the UN Chief and avoid adopting stances considered as interference in the internal affairs of the UN member states. Fars News Agency, June 26). U.N. envoy also accused the United States of denying Parviz Davoudi Iran's first vice president and members of his delegation visas to attend a three-day U.N. conference on the global financial crisis."I am indeed delivering this speech on behalf of Dr. Parviz Davoudi, first vice president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who along with members of the Iranian delegation was not able to participate in the conference”.
28. Iran bans Mousavi's aide from visiting UK - Iran barred Abolfazl Fateh, head of the Mousavi information committee from leaving the country until he elaborates on aspects pertinent to the recent post-election unrest. Fateh who seeks to visit England, "has been banned (from leaving Iran) because of (his role in) recent developments and his efforts to arrange for the illegal gathering of Mousavi supporters". Fateh - who is studying in the UK - will remain in Iran until he can "clarify certain issues". Fateh, who is a former managing director of the ISNA news agency, has helped the defeated Reformist candidate during his election campaign.
29. Iran blames France for 'encouraging unrest' and call on Paris to ‘mind its own business’ - Iran has criticized the French government, saying it has interfered in the country's internal affairs by "encouraging unrest" after the 12 June presidential elections. According to a statement issued by the Iranian embassy "Iran's ambassador to Paris has advised French officials to dedicate their time and efforts to managing their country's economic and political problems instead of interfering in matters that do not concern them. The statement followed a Tuesday (23 June) meeting in Paris between Iranian envoy and the director for North Africa and the Middle East at the French Foreign Office, Patrice Paoli. (Press TV June 25).
30. Justice Minister: Iran is holding documents proving foreign Interference in recent unrest - Iranian minister of justice said Iran is in possession of adequate documents to prove foreign interference in post-election events in Tehran, the on Saturday. Fars News Agency, June 27)
31. Friday Prayers delivered by Hojjat ol-Eslam Seyyed Ahmad Khatami, member of the Assembly of Experts, in Tehran – Message to foreign governments (for full version please contact - TG) :
a. Attack against the UN and Western governments:
i. UN – “You (the UN Secretary General) are a miserable fellow. In Gaza, 400 children were killed and you were not worried then? More than 100 innocent women died in Gaza and you did not say a word... I am repeating what is already said. This is not the United Nations; it is the United Arrogant Nations”
ii. USA – “How dare you to talk about human rights. You have constantly violated human rights. The Guantanamo Prison…Abu-Ghurayb …Americans burned the Davidian sect followers alive. Now you are defending human rights?
iii. UK – “the level of torture in their prisons is known to the world. Our people have not forgotten more than 57 years of British crimes. They were the one who set up the dark regime of Pahlavi. The British were so malicious in the recent developments. They deserve to receive our chants of "Down with Britain. ‘Down with Britain’ is going to be added to ‘down with the USA’”. (Crowd chanting ‘down with Britain and down with the USA’).
iv. France – “It is fresh in our memories when Saddam Husayn's forces were bombarding Iran with their French Super Etendard fighter jets. Now you are talking about human rights”.
v. Germany - “Some of our soldiers are still suffering from the effects of these chemical weapons. Now you are talking about human rights?”
b. The Iranian nation will respond to all those arrogant powers - Rest assured that the Iranian nation will respond to all those arrogant powers in due course. The way some European countries have dealt with the recent developments has been childish. They are not politically mature yet. My last words are: The world needs to know that our Islamic Revolution is a sanctified tree.
32. Attack against foreign media - “They have been assisting the enemy. I do not know how they are free to roam around inside the country.. How is it that they are constantly inside the country adding fuel to the fire, using their satellite mobiles and urging people to come? And they lie, too. Take a look at the story of the lady (Neda Aka Sultan – TG) who was killed, for whom Mr. Obama sheds crocodile tears, and who the West has made a big story about. Any logical individual who watches the film realizes that the work has been done by rioters themselves. If they had not done so, how is it that they have even filmed the location where the lady had parked her car? It is clear that the scene was pre-staged. The rioters wanted to create such an incident.
33. Foreign Ministry disappointed with G8 statement on elections – Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hassan Qashqavi has commented on the G8 statement concerning recent events in Iran, noting: “Iran is very disappointed with the interventionist position of the G8 foreign ministers on the subject of the elections in Iran. If the European Parliament is indeed concerned about human rights violations, it should have pressured the Zionist regime over the barbaric massacre of the citizens of Gaza.”
34. Iranian ambassador in Mexico: The CIA was involved in the murder of Neda Sultan – According to Iranian Ambassador to Mexico Mohammad Hassan Qadiri, the CIA may have been involved in the killing of Neda Soltan and the unrest in Tehran. Meanwhile, Iranian authorities continue to investigate the incident, with officials claiming that suspicious elements among the demonstrators used a smuggled weapon to kill the young woman.
35. Iran Summons Swedish Ambassador Over Attack On Embassy Iran summoned the Swedish ambassador, Magnus Werndstedt, to the Foreign Ministry to protest an attack on the embassy in Stockholm (Video) that led to the injury of one of its staff. Between 150 and 200 people had been holding a demonstration outside the embassy in protest at post-election incidents in Iran (Video). Protester chanted “Death to the Dictator” and “Death to the Islamic Republic” and were evacuated by local police forces.
36. “Keyhan” Editorial: Nasrallah is happy not to have obtained power because it would have prevented him from his 'real work' which is leading the resistance - “Keyhan” Editorial by Sa'dollah Zare'i: "A framework for analyzing today's Lebanon". Author examines the Lebanese election and the division of votes in the Lebanese Parliament. He claims that the election there is based on religious shares and not on one vote for every citizen. He also concludes that Seyyid Hasan Nasrallah is happy not to have obtained power because it would deter him from his 'real work' which is leading the resistance (“Keyhan”, June 25)
Security Affairs
37. Pilot Killed in Iran Air Exercise The head of the foundation for martyrs' and veterans' affairs of the province said that the pilot of a F5 jet, Lt-Col Qadir Asadi, was killed in a accident during the air exercise codenamed Milad-e-Nur-e-Velayat in Chabahar
38. Iranian “spy nests” in Bahrain and elsewhere – Several Iraqi websites are reporting that Iran’s intelligence and security organization recently paid a large sum of money to Ayatollah Aisa Qasem, a senior source of emulation in Bahrain, so that he can open a pro-Iranian religious college in Bahrain. The sites claim that similar colleges will also be opened soon in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and elsewhere and will serve as espionage centers for the Iranian intelligence service.
39. Yemen permits Iranian warships to dock at Yemen's port to fight piracy. Iranian foreign minister said "Yemen has agreed to permit Iranian warships to dock at Yemen's port (of Aden) to provide security to Iranian commercial ships in the region," The agreement came a month after Iran announced that six Iranian vessels were joining the international efforts against piracy off the coast of Somalia. Navy Real-Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said "Six warships and support vessels have been dispatched to the Gulf of Aden region and international waters”.
Economic Affairs
40. Saderat Bank announces plan to counter sanctions – Saderat Bank CEO Hamid Borhani has announced a plan to shake off the sanctions imposed on the bank’s activities abroad by the European Union. The CEO said that in light of the fact that 51 percent of the bank’s stock is in private hands, steps could be taken to have the sanctions lifted. He added that the bank had already taken steps to convince the EU to lift the sanctions.
41. Danish firm to help set up two methanol-production plants – Private Iranian petrochemical companies Marjan and Kimya Pars have signed a deal with Danish chemicals firm Haldor Topsoe, which will help set up two methanol-production plants in Iran.
42. AP report: Iran is an important trade partner for Europe – According to an AP report, Iran is an important trade partner for Europe and thus, the EU will think twice before imposing or widening sanctions on Tehran. The report says that in light of the extensive and ongoing trade relations between Iran and Europe, and despite European criticism of recent events in Iran, when it comes to economic and trade interests, the EU will very carefully consider any proposal to impose additional sanctions.
43. Indian companies express interest in gas-field investment – Indian company ONGC and two of its partners have expressed interest in investing $5 billion in one of Iran’s gas fields.
44. Protests causing potato shortage – The Agricultural Organization in the Tehran Province has commented on the current potato shortage in the capital’s market stalls, noting that the problem will soon be resolved. The organization said that the shortage stemmed primarily from transportation difficulties caused by the recent unrest in the capital.
45. SAIPA Sees Record High Of $15M In Quarterly Exports - Iranian carmaker SAIPA has exported over $15 million of products in the first 3 months of the current Iranian calendar year (March 21 - June 21), up 105% in comparison to the same period last year.
46. Ahmadinejad Inaugurates Petrochemical Plant In Assalouyeh - Ahmadinejad inaugurated Mehr Petrochemical Plant in the southern city of Assalouyeh, in Bushehr province. Japan and Thailand have cooperated in the completion of the project, while Iranian specialists and engineers have contributed a 40-percent role in the implementation of the project. Ahmadinejad was accompanied by Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari, Mehr petrochemical complex launched operation with 100 percent capacity and has produced more than 6,000 tons of various kinds of products since its opening on May 22. Some 2,500 tons of its products were exported over the past month.
Protest Update
1. Iran has detained eight local staff at the British embassy in Tehran on accusations of having a role in post-election riots - The embassy has not yet confirmed the report from the semi-official Fars news agency, which did not name its source. Relations between the countries are strained after Tehran accused the UK of inflaming unrest, which London denies. Some 17 people are thought to have died in street protests after the disputed 12 June presidential poll. Tehran has expelled two British diplomats in the past week, and the UK has responded with a similar measure. There is no independent confirmation of the latest arrests. "Eight local employees at the British embassy who had a considerable role in recent unrest were taken into custody," Fars said, without giving a source. The UK Foreign Office said in London: "We have in the last few days received a number of, sometimes confused, reports that British nationals or others with British connections have been detained. We continue to raise them with the Iranian authorities." Karroubi proposes rally competition – Speaking over the weekend to editors at the Etemad-e Melli daily, defeated presidential candidate Karroubi said he had a proposal for Ahmadinejad – for each of the two political camps to stage a rally, at the same time, in different areas of the capital and with the approval of the Interior Ministry. The president-elect, Karoubie said, would then see who draws the largest show of support, the Principlists or the Reformists.
3. Interior Ministry sets conditions for demonstration – The Iranian Interior Ministry has announced that requests regarding the staging of demonstrations or rallies must be submitted at least a week in advance, in person, and with other guarantees too. The head of the Reformist Front’s headquarters said that the organization had already submitted a request to hold a quiet demonstration in Zazadi Square at which Mousavi would speak.
4. Candle light vigil at Tehran University - video
5. Arrests of students continue
a. The Amir Kabir University’s student website is reporting that security forces have arrested a large number of the institute’s students in recent days, with many of them also receiving telephone threats. Three Students Union members were detained on their return to their dorms, and although they have been allowed brief contact with their families, they were not allowed to say where they are being held.
b. Pro-Karroubi student activists were reportedly arrested in Hormozgan, Hamedan and Karaj.
c. Mojtaba Mohammadian, a prominent student activist from Tehran, was arrested on Saturday and transferred to an unknown location. Mohammadian used to be a student at Babol Open University before he was suspended from his studies some three years due to his political activity.
6. An unconfirmed report claims that the regime has created a camp south of Tehran to house hundreds of detainees of the recent unrests in Tehran.
7. Prisoners’ rights group criticizes arrests – According to the Iranian Prisoners’ Rights Association, the recent widespread arrests in the country have been carried out without any regard for the law and human rights. The association pledged its readiness to deal with all matters pertaining to detainees and missing individuals and called on the families to come forward with their cases.
8. IRGC presents: identify the protester - Revolutionary Guards’ website posts photos of alleged protest leaders and asks the public for assistance to identify the individuals.
9. Kurdish youth dies of injuries – A Kurdish-minority youth, Arash Salavati, who had been in a coma for several days after he was injured in the recent unrest in Tehran, died of his injuries over the weekend.
10. Body of missing student found – The body of Kyanoush Asa, a Kermanshah University student who disappeared a week ago, has been located at the Forensic Medicine Institute, where officials are refusing to hand over the corpse to the family.
11. Rumors of death of Saeid Hajarian rejected – The wife of senior Reformist theoretician, Saeid Hajarian, has denied recent rumors of his death in detention. She noted, however, that his physical condition was cause for much concern. Hajarian was left handicapped following an attempt on his life in the past.
12. Etemad-e Melli editor-in-chief summoned to court – Etemad-e Melli editor-in-chief Mohammad Javad Haq has been summoned to the court for state employees and the press to provide testimony regarding open cases against the newspaper.
13. Security forces seizing satellite dishes – Tehran residents are reporting that security forces have again started seizing satellite dishes from the roofs of buildings in the capital’s neighborhoods. According to the reports, the forces are knocking on people’s doors and ordering them to immediately take down the dishes. Many Iranian citizens use satellite dishes to pick up television broadcasts from abroad.
14. Basij militiamen shooting from rooftops – Aljazeera video
The Political Scene
15. Mir Hossein Mousavi formally rejected the government’s offer for a partial recount - Mir Hossein Mousavi formally rejected the government’s offer for a partial recount of the ballots cast in the 12 June disputed presidential election. Mousavi again demanded a full re-run of the election. "Limiting the probe into complaints about electoral irregularities to recounting 10 percent of the ballot boxes cannot attract people's trust and convince public opinion about the results," Mousavi said on his campaign website Ghalamnews.ir. "I insist again on cancelling the election results as the most suitable way out of the problem," Mousavi said. In a letter to the Guardian Council, Mir Hossein Mousavi, insisted that the entire election process was fraught with numerous violations of important articles of Iran’s election laws and, therefore, there was no way to rectify the situation other than annulment of the election and holding a new one.
16. Election-review committee set up – Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, spokesman for the Council of Guardians, has announced the establishment of a special committee that will review the election process. He said that Mousavi and Karroubi would name their representatives on the committee within the next 24 hours. The spokesman added that 10 percent of the polling boxes would be recounted in the presence of representatives of the candidates. Karroubi, meanwhile, has said that he would agree to name a representative to the committee on condition that two of the panel members are replaced and that all complaints and problems are dealt with. The two men Karroubi wants replaced were appointed by the Council of Guardians and he claims that they are not objective.
17. Larijani threatened with a vote of no confidence - Ahmadinejad supporters have threatened Larijani with a vote of no confidence because of Larijani’s allegedly indirect support to Mousavi.
18. Expediency Council Urges Guardian Council and losing candidates to comply with law - The Expediency Council has urged the Guardian Council as an election monitoring body
to resolve the disputes, disagreement, and ambiguities is compliance with the law. In the light of the Supreme Leaders agreement to extend the deadline for reviewing the presidential candidates complaints, the GC is expected to deal with all complaints and address the remaining issues. All presidential candidates are asked to fully cooperate with the Guardian Council and take this opportunity to submit their documents and evidence for comprehensive and thorough examination. In this regard Hashemi-Rafanjani will issue a statement in support of the leader.
19. Senior sources of emulation meet secretly – Senior ayatollahs and sources of emulation in Iran, including Ayatollah Safi Golpayegani and Ayatollah Shabiri Zanjani, have met secretly on numerous occasions in recent days in an effort to find a solution to the post-election problems in the country.
20. Ayatollah Ardebili: The recent events have weakened the regime – In a meeting with members of the Council of Guardians, senior source of emulation Ayatollah Mousavi Ardebili said that the recent events in the country in the wake of the elections have been very distressing and have weakened the regime. Ardebili spoke of the need to allow the people to have their say and to solve all problems.
21. Grand Ayatollah Montazeri urges leadership to refrain from violence, equates security forces to “the mercenaries of the shah” – Senior source of emulation Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has issued a statement in which he harshly criticizes the Iranian leadership and the violence being used against demonstrators. Montazeri also calls on the leadership to avoid undermining the trust of the public. Montazeri: “Just 30 years after the victory of the revolution, and with the scenes from the fall of the previous regime still in the memory of the public, Tehran and some of the big cities have become a large military base. This mistaken policy pits the military and security personnel against the people, and the plain-clothed individuals are reminiscent of the mercenaries of the shah.”
22. Grand Ayatollah Makram Shirazi calls to resolve Iran's presidential election dispute through "national conciliation" - Grand Ayatollah Naser Makram Shiraziissued a statement recalling the "Extremely bitter events have occurred in the days following the magnificent 10th (presidential) election, and certain adventurists took advantage of the disputes between the honorable candidates…recent events have caused deep regret and sorrow in all Iranians loyal to the Islamic establishment and the revolution,... gladdened the enemy…Under these circumstances, where both our friends and enemies are observing the situation in our country, it is incumbent upon us to fully maintain calm and not to allow adventurists to disturb public order and destroy public and private property, and, as the great Leader of the Islamic Revolution has emphasized, the problems must be solved through legal means…Definitively, something must be done to ensure that there are no embers burning under the ashes, and (to ensure) that hostilities, antagonism and rivalries are transformed into amity and cooperation among all parties." Naser Makarem Shirazi called on rival parties to show self-restraint, to resolve the problems rationally and to bear in mind the future of the countryand to be prepared for "a national reconciliation".
23. Khomeini institute denies report about grandson’s opposition leanings – A Russian news agency reported Friday that the grandson of Imam Khomeini, Hassan Khomeini, has joined the ranks of the Iranian opposition and has invited Reformist activists to assemble at the grave of his grandfather. The item was not carried by the Iranian media, but the institute responsible for publishing Imam Khomeini’s writings decided nevertheless to comment on the report and reject it.
24. Harsh message delivered at Friday prayers by Hojjat ol-Eslam Seyyed Ahmad Khatami, member of the Assembly of Experts, in Tehran - domestic message (for attacks on foreign governments see the ‘Diplomatic Scene’):
a. The leader can fight and destroy whoever acts against the Islamic system; Calls on the officials of the Judicial Branch to deal severely and ruthlessly with the leaders of the agitations, whose fodder comes from America and Israel - “Unauthorized demonstrations are both against the law and against the Islamic law. However, agitations, destructive acts, setting fire to mosques and buses, destroying people's property, creating insecurity and terror, and harassing people can be described in two ways from the viewpoint of our jurisprudence…Whoever acts against the Islamic system, the imam, the leader of the Islamic community, can fight and destroy whoever acts against the Islamic system…Anyone who takes up arms, be it guns or knives, is a muharib (one who wages war against God - TG)…Islam has said that a muharib should receive the severest of punishments. Accordingly, I call on the officials of the Judicial Branch to deal severely and ruthlessly with the leaders of the agitations, whose fodder comes from America and Israel, so that everyone learns a lesson from it”.
b. Gratitude to all police and security forces, especially the members of the Basij force – “The members of the Basij force have been working hard during the wartime and now. They have sacrificed a lot”.
c. Election turnout showed the power and grandeur of the system – “It was a symbol of our religious democracy, which materialized although the Global Arrogance, with its pre-planned agendas, made the sweet taste of victory bitter for our people with their inappropriate behavior the story didn't start after the election, they had planned it well before”.
d. The winning candidate should dedicate his soul to loving everyone, losers should close ranks - both those who voted for him and those who didn't and the candidates who did not manage to win the majority of votes should be patient and should act logically. Take a look at the enemies being so happy with this situation. Friends of the Islamic Revolution, not only inside Iran but also everywhere in the world, are being hurt.”
e. Iran is the bearer of religious democracy – “Iran showed that it is the flag bearer of religious democracy. Holding more than 30 elections in 30 years is the best example of religious democracy…they have the legal right to protest, but say that the right channel should be chosen (to express the objection). The Guardian Council showed that it accepts complaints openly and even extended the complaint period by five days to remove any ambiguity”.
f. Rule of law - “We must accept that a country without the rule of law is a jungle. If we want our country to be organized, the only way is to abide by the law. Everyone should submit to law. The people who voted for the constitution expect the law to be enforced”.
g. Act in accordance with the law and logic – “Bearing in mind the fourth point about the rule of law, the annulment of the elections and throwing the very essence of elections into question, in the view of the leader, is considered bullying and the nation will not submit to bullying. If you have problems with a few boxes, you should express your objection, and then if the elections are annulled as a result, then, so be it…Some of these esteemed candidates had more than 40,000 representatives at every branch, something that is unprecedented in the Islamic Republic, and they still talk about vote rigging…They should raise issues in accordance with the law, act in accordance with the law and logic, and then whatever happens, happens”.
The Diplomatic Scene
25. Ahmadinejad: From now on we will change our stance in our talks with the west ; Iran has turned into a nuclear state with aerospace technology; Obama should not to fall to the same trap as the Europeans and should not follow in President Bush’s footsteps.
a. “International relations need to change and will change, and the election is the start of this process. The enemies thought they could destroy the power of the Iranian nation with their negative propaganda, but today we will take a new position when we talk to them… "These (anti-Iranian) stances are the result of their fear from the epic presence of the Iranian people in the arena and from disclosure of their false claims about democracy…Iranian nation will hold talks with the Westerners with absolute honor, and of course based on principles, logic, and justice …” Pointing out the recent stances of President Obama: "We do not expect anything from the British and the European countries' governments, which are not honorable and their history is known to the world. But why has Mr Obama been caught up in this trap, though he carries the slogan of change. And he is following the same path as Bush, who suffered the …I advise you to stop this kind of behavior”
b. Despite the imposition of the heaviest sanctions, including blocking the activities of banks and military threats against Iran, Iran has turned into a nuclear state with aerospace technology and it has made progress in the nanotechnology arena, industries and developmental projects much more than before;
c. Freedom is being practiced in Iran. “What is taking place in the European countries, and what is this unpopular democracy which is governing America and Europe? Do you know that people in America and Europe have no right to choose, and are restricted to choose from two or three parties. They do not have a big role in political affairs or in deciding their own destiny”
26. Ahmadinejad: west will be treated more powerfully during second term - Ahmadinejad addressing a judiciary forum referred to the role of certain western countries in the recent post-election unrests in Iran, and said, "They imagined they could impair the spirit of the Iranian nation but they were mistaken again because they have not understood the Iranian nation…If they have conceived that the (Iranian) government would be affected by them, they should know that we will treat them more powerfully in this (presidential second) term.
27. Iran urges UN Secretary General to avoid interference in its domestic affairs; Iran's first vice president denied visa to the UN - Iran's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Mohammad Khazaee criticized in a letter UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon remarks on Iran's presidential election It is regretful that the UN Secretary General, in breach of the duties entrusted to him and also in violation of the known international principles, has taken a hasty stance on the Islamic Republic of Iran's recent magnificent election…This stance is considered as interference in the Islamic Republic of Iran's internal affairs…Over the past few days, some western officials have raised improper claims on the recent election in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are considered as an meddling in our country's internal affairs…The UN Chief has jeopardized his credit before the world's independent nations by following the said (western) officials”. Khazaee also asked the UN Secretary General to maintain his independence and position as the UN Chief and avoid adopting stances considered as interference in the internal affairs of the UN member states. Fars News Agency, June 26). U.N. envoy also accused the United States of denying Parviz Davoudi Iran's first vice president and members of his delegation visas to attend a three-day U.N. conference on the global financial crisis."I am indeed delivering this speech on behalf of Dr. Parviz Davoudi, first vice president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who along with members of the Iranian delegation was not able to participate in the conference”.
28. Iran bans Mousavi's aide from visiting UK - Iran barred Abolfazl Fateh, head of the Mousavi information committee from leaving the country until he elaborates on aspects pertinent to the recent post-election unrest. Fateh who seeks to visit England, "has been banned (from leaving Iran) because of (his role in) recent developments and his efforts to arrange for the illegal gathering of Mousavi supporters". Fateh - who is studying in the UK - will remain in Iran until he can "clarify certain issues". Fateh, who is a former managing director of the ISNA news agency, has helped the defeated Reformist candidate during his election campaign.
29. Iran blames France for 'encouraging unrest' and call on Paris to ‘mind its own business’ - Iran has criticized the French government, saying it has interfered in the country's internal affairs by "encouraging unrest" after the 12 June presidential elections. According to a statement issued by the Iranian embassy "Iran's ambassador to Paris has advised French officials to dedicate their time and efforts to managing their country's economic and political problems instead of interfering in matters that do not concern them. The statement followed a Tuesday (23 June) meeting in Paris between Iranian envoy and the director for North Africa and the Middle East at the French Foreign Office, Patrice Paoli. (Press TV June 25).
30. Justice Minister: Iran is holding documents proving foreign Interference in recent unrest - Iranian minister of justice said Iran is in possession of adequate documents to prove foreign interference in post-election events in Tehran, the on Saturday. Fars News Agency, June 27)
31. Friday Prayers delivered by Hojjat ol-Eslam Seyyed Ahmad Khatami, member of the Assembly of Experts, in Tehran – Message to foreign governments (for full version please contact - TG) :
a. Attack against the UN and Western governments:
i. UN – “You (the UN Secretary General) are a miserable fellow. In Gaza, 400 children were killed and you were not worried then? More than 100 innocent women died in Gaza and you did not say a word... I am repeating what is already said. This is not the United Nations; it is the United Arrogant Nations”
ii. USA – “How dare you to talk about human rights. You have constantly violated human rights. The Guantanamo Prison…Abu-Ghurayb …Americans burned the Davidian sect followers alive. Now you are defending human rights?
iii. UK – “the level of torture in their prisons is known to the world. Our people have not forgotten more than 57 years of British crimes. They were the one who set up the dark regime of Pahlavi. The British were so malicious in the recent developments. They deserve to receive our chants of "Down with Britain. ‘Down with Britain’ is going to be added to ‘down with the USA’”. (Crowd chanting ‘down with Britain and down with the USA’).
iv. France – “It is fresh in our memories when Saddam Husayn's forces were bombarding Iran with their French Super Etendard fighter jets. Now you are talking about human rights”.
v. Germany - “Some of our soldiers are still suffering from the effects of these chemical weapons. Now you are talking about human rights?”
b. The Iranian nation will respond to all those arrogant powers - Rest assured that the Iranian nation will respond to all those arrogant powers in due course. The way some European countries have dealt with the recent developments has been childish. They are not politically mature yet. My last words are: The world needs to know that our Islamic Revolution is a sanctified tree.
32. Attack against foreign media - “They have been assisting the enemy. I do not know how they are free to roam around inside the country.. How is it that they are constantly inside the country adding fuel to the fire, using their satellite mobiles and urging people to come? And they lie, too. Take a look at the story of the lady (Neda Aka Sultan – TG) who was killed, for whom Mr. Obama sheds crocodile tears, and who the West has made a big story about. Any logical individual who watches the film realizes that the work has been done by rioters themselves. If they had not done so, how is it that they have even filmed the location where the lady had parked her car? It is clear that the scene was pre-staged. The rioters wanted to create such an incident.
33. Foreign Ministry disappointed with G8 statement on elections – Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hassan Qashqavi has commented on the G8 statement concerning recent events in Iran, noting: “Iran is very disappointed with the interventionist position of the G8 foreign ministers on the subject of the elections in Iran. If the European Parliament is indeed concerned about human rights violations, it should have pressured the Zionist regime over the barbaric massacre of the citizens of Gaza.”
34. Iranian ambassador in Mexico: The CIA was involved in the murder of Neda Sultan – According to Iranian Ambassador to Mexico Mohammad Hassan Qadiri, the CIA may have been involved in the killing of Neda Soltan and the unrest in Tehran. Meanwhile, Iranian authorities continue to investigate the incident, with officials claiming that suspicious elements among the demonstrators used a smuggled weapon to kill the young woman.
35. Iran Summons Swedish Ambassador Over Attack On Embassy Iran summoned the Swedish ambassador, Magnus Werndstedt, to the Foreign Ministry to protest an attack on the embassy in Stockholm (Video) that led to the injury of one of its staff. Between 150 and 200 people had been holding a demonstration outside the embassy in protest at post-election incidents in Iran (Video). Protester chanted “Death to the Dictator” and “Death to the Islamic Republic” and were evacuated by local police forces.
36. “Keyhan” Editorial: Nasrallah is happy not to have obtained power because it would have prevented him from his 'real work' which is leading the resistance - “Keyhan” Editorial by Sa'dollah Zare'i: "A framework for analyzing today's Lebanon". Author examines the Lebanese election and the division of votes in the Lebanese Parliament. He claims that the election there is based on religious shares and not on one vote for every citizen. He also concludes that Seyyid Hasan Nasrallah is happy not to have obtained power because it would deter him from his 'real work' which is leading the resistance (“Keyhan”, June 25)
Security Affairs
37. Pilot Killed in Iran Air Exercise The head of the foundation for martyrs' and veterans' affairs of the province said that the pilot of a F5 jet, Lt-Col Qadir Asadi, was killed in a accident during the air exercise codenamed Milad-e-Nur-e-Velayat in Chabahar
38. Iranian “spy nests” in Bahrain and elsewhere – Several Iraqi websites are reporting that Iran’s intelligence and security organization recently paid a large sum of money to Ayatollah Aisa Qasem, a senior source of emulation in Bahrain, so that he can open a pro-Iranian religious college in Bahrain. The sites claim that similar colleges will also be opened soon in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and elsewhere and will serve as espionage centers for the Iranian intelligence service.
39. Yemen permits Iranian warships to dock at Yemen's port to fight piracy. Iranian foreign minister said "Yemen has agreed to permit Iranian warships to dock at Yemen's port (of Aden) to provide security to Iranian commercial ships in the region," The agreement came a month after Iran announced that six Iranian vessels were joining the international efforts against piracy off the coast of Somalia. Navy Real-Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said "Six warships and support vessels have been dispatched to the Gulf of Aden region and international waters”.
Economic Affairs
40. Saderat Bank announces plan to counter sanctions – Saderat Bank CEO Hamid Borhani has announced a plan to shake off the sanctions imposed on the bank’s activities abroad by the European Union. The CEO said that in light of the fact that 51 percent of the bank’s stock is in private hands, steps could be taken to have the sanctions lifted. He added that the bank had already taken steps to convince the EU to lift the sanctions.
41. Danish firm to help set up two methanol-production plants – Private Iranian petrochemical companies Marjan and Kimya Pars have signed a deal with Danish chemicals firm Haldor Topsoe, which will help set up two methanol-production plants in Iran.
42. AP report: Iran is an important trade partner for Europe – According to an AP report, Iran is an important trade partner for Europe and thus, the EU will think twice before imposing or widening sanctions on Tehran. The report says that in light of the extensive and ongoing trade relations between Iran and Europe, and despite European criticism of recent events in Iran, when it comes to economic and trade interests, the EU will very carefully consider any proposal to impose additional sanctions.
43. Indian companies express interest in gas-field investment – Indian company ONGC and two of its partners have expressed interest in investing $5 billion in one of Iran’s gas fields.
44. Protests causing potato shortage – The Agricultural Organization in the Tehran Province has commented on the current potato shortage in the capital’s market stalls, noting that the problem will soon be resolved. The organization said that the shortage stemmed primarily from transportation difficulties caused by the recent unrest in the capital.
45. SAIPA Sees Record High Of $15M In Quarterly Exports - Iranian carmaker SAIPA has exported over $15 million of products in the first 3 months of the current Iranian calendar year (March 21 - June 21), up 105% in comparison to the same period last year.
46. Ahmadinejad Inaugurates Petrochemical Plant In Assalouyeh - Ahmadinejad inaugurated Mehr Petrochemical Plant in the southern city of Assalouyeh, in Bushehr province. Japan and Thailand have cooperated in the completion of the project, while Iranian specialists and engineers have contributed a 40-percent role in the implementation of the project. Ahmadinejad was accompanied by Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari, Mehr petrochemical complex launched operation with 100 percent capacity and has produced more than 6,000 tons of various kinds of products since its opening on May 22. Some 2,500 tons of its products were exported over the past month.
Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in Israel.
By Yisrael Medad
June 28, 2009
No one, including a president of the United States of America, can presume to tell me, a Jew, that I cannot live in the area of my national homeland. That's one of the main reasons my wife and I chose in 1981 to move to Shiloh, a so-called settlement less than 30 miles north of Jerusalem. After Shiloh was founded in 1978, then-President Carter demanded of Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the village of eight families be removed. Carter, from his first meeting with Begin, pressed him to "freeze" the activity of Jews rebuilding a presence in their historic home. As his former information aide, Shmuel Katz, related, Begin said: "You, Mr. President, have in the United States a number of places with names like Bethlehem, Shiloh and Hebron, and you haven't the right to tell prospective residents in those places that they are forbidden to live there. Just like you, I have no such right in my country. Every Jew is entitled to reside wherever he pleases."
We now fast-forward to President Obama, who declared on June 15 in remarks at a news conference with Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, that Jewish communities beyond the Green Line "in past agreements have been categorized as illegal."
I believe the president has been misled. There can be nothing illegal about a Jew living where Judaism was born. To suggest that residency be permitted or prohibited based on race, religion or ethnic background is dangerously close to employing racist terminology.
Suppose someone suggested that Palestinian villages and towns in pre-1967 Israel were to be called "settlements" and that, to achieve a true peace, Arabs should be removed from their homes. Of course, separation or transfer of Arabs is intolerable, but why is it quite acceptable to demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed from the area? Do not Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in the state of Israel?
Some have questioned why Jews should be allowed to resettle areas in which they didn't live in the years preceding the 1967 war, areas that were almost empty of Jews before 1948 as well. But why didn't Jews live in the area at that time? Quite simple: They had been the victims of a three-decades-long ethnic cleansing project that started in 1920, when an Arab attack wiped out a small Jewish farm at Tel Hai in Upper Galilee and was followed by attacks in Jerusalem and, in 1921, in Jaffa and Jerusalem.
In 1929, Hebron's centuries-old Jewish population was expelled as a result of an Arab pogrom that killed almost 70 Jews. Jews that year removed themselves from Gaza, Nablus and Jenin. The return of my family to Shiloh -- and of other Jews to more than 150 other communities over the Green Line since 1967 -- is not solely a throwback to claimed biblical rights. Nor is it solely to assert our right to return to areas that were Jewish-populated in the 20th century until Arab violence drove them away. We have returned under a clear fulfillment of international law. There can be no doubt as to the legality of the act of my residency in Shiloh.
I am a revenant -- one who has returned after a long absence to ancestral lands. The Supreme Council of the League of Nations adopted principles following the 1920 San Remo Conference aimed at bringing about the "reconstitution" of a Jewish National Home. Article 6 of those principles reads: "The administration of Palestine ... shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands." That "land" was originally delineated to include all of what is today Jordan as well as all the territory west of the Jordan River.
In 1923, Britain created a new political entity, Transjordan, and suspended the right of Jews to live east of the Jordan River. But the region in which I now live was intended to be part of the Jewish National Home. Then, in a historical irony, a Saudi Arabian refugee, Abdallah, fleeing the Wahabis, was afforded the opportunity to establish an Arab kingdom where none had existed previously -- only Jews. As a result, in an area where prophets and priests fashioned the most humanist and moral religion and culture on Earth, Jews are now termed "illegals."
Many people insist that settlements are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. But that convention does not apply to Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza district. Its second clause makes it clear that it deals with the occupation of "the territory of a high contracting party." Judea and Samaria and Gaza, which Israel gained control of in 1967, were not territories of a "high contracting party." Jewish historical rights that the mandate had recognized were not canceled, and no new sovereign ever took over in Judea and Samaria or in Gaza.
Obama has made his objections to Israeli settlements known. But other U.S. presidents have disagreed. President Reagan's administration issued a declaration that Israeli settlements were not illegal. Support for that position came from Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former president of the International Court of Justice, who determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria did not constitute "occupation." It also came from a leading member of Reagan's administration, the former dean of the Yale Law School and former undersecretary of State, Eugene Rostow, who asserted that "Israel has a stronger claim to the West Bank than any other nation or would-be nation [and] the same legal right to settle the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as it has to settle Haifa or West Jerusalem."
Any suggestions, then, of "freezing" and halting "natural growth" are themselves not only illegal but quite immoral.
Yisrael Medad, an American-born Israeli commentator, has lived in Shiloh since 1981. He is head of information resources at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem and blogs at www.myrightword.blogspot.com.
Comment: These are towns and cities inhabited by Israeli citizens living in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria.
By Yisrael Medad
June 28, 2009
No one, including a president of the United States of America, can presume to tell me, a Jew, that I cannot live in the area of my national homeland. That's one of the main reasons my wife and I chose in 1981 to move to Shiloh, a so-called settlement less than 30 miles north of Jerusalem. After Shiloh was founded in 1978, then-President Carter demanded of Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the village of eight families be removed. Carter, from his first meeting with Begin, pressed him to "freeze" the activity of Jews rebuilding a presence in their historic home. As his former information aide, Shmuel Katz, related, Begin said: "You, Mr. President, have in the United States a number of places with names like Bethlehem, Shiloh and Hebron, and you haven't the right to tell prospective residents in those places that they are forbidden to live there. Just like you, I have no such right in my country. Every Jew is entitled to reside wherever he pleases."
We now fast-forward to President Obama, who declared on June 15 in remarks at a news conference with Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, that Jewish communities beyond the Green Line "in past agreements have been categorized as illegal."
I believe the president has been misled. There can be nothing illegal about a Jew living where Judaism was born. To suggest that residency be permitted or prohibited based on race, religion or ethnic background is dangerously close to employing racist terminology.
Suppose someone suggested that Palestinian villages and towns in pre-1967 Israel were to be called "settlements" and that, to achieve a true peace, Arabs should be removed from their homes. Of course, separation or transfer of Arabs is intolerable, but why is it quite acceptable to demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed from the area? Do not Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in the state of Israel?
Some have questioned why Jews should be allowed to resettle areas in which they didn't live in the years preceding the 1967 war, areas that were almost empty of Jews before 1948 as well. But why didn't Jews live in the area at that time? Quite simple: They had been the victims of a three-decades-long ethnic cleansing project that started in 1920, when an Arab attack wiped out a small Jewish farm at Tel Hai in Upper Galilee and was followed by attacks in Jerusalem and, in 1921, in Jaffa and Jerusalem.
In 1929, Hebron's centuries-old Jewish population was expelled as a result of an Arab pogrom that killed almost 70 Jews. Jews that year removed themselves from Gaza, Nablus and Jenin. The return of my family to Shiloh -- and of other Jews to more than 150 other communities over the Green Line since 1967 -- is not solely a throwback to claimed biblical rights. Nor is it solely to assert our right to return to areas that were Jewish-populated in the 20th century until Arab violence drove them away. We have returned under a clear fulfillment of international law. There can be no doubt as to the legality of the act of my residency in Shiloh.
I am a revenant -- one who has returned after a long absence to ancestral lands. The Supreme Council of the League of Nations adopted principles following the 1920 San Remo Conference aimed at bringing about the "reconstitution" of a Jewish National Home. Article 6 of those principles reads: "The administration of Palestine ... shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands." That "land" was originally delineated to include all of what is today Jordan as well as all the territory west of the Jordan River.
In 1923, Britain created a new political entity, Transjordan, and suspended the right of Jews to live east of the Jordan River. But the region in which I now live was intended to be part of the Jewish National Home. Then, in a historical irony, a Saudi Arabian refugee, Abdallah, fleeing the Wahabis, was afforded the opportunity to establish an Arab kingdom where none had existed previously -- only Jews. As a result, in an area where prophets and priests fashioned the most humanist and moral religion and culture on Earth, Jews are now termed "illegals."
Many people insist that settlements are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. But that convention does not apply to Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza district. Its second clause makes it clear that it deals with the occupation of "the territory of a high contracting party." Judea and Samaria and Gaza, which Israel gained control of in 1967, were not territories of a "high contracting party." Jewish historical rights that the mandate had recognized were not canceled, and no new sovereign ever took over in Judea and Samaria or in Gaza.
Obama has made his objections to Israeli settlements known. But other U.S. presidents have disagreed. President Reagan's administration issued a declaration that Israeli settlements were not illegal. Support for that position came from Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former president of the International Court of Justice, who determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria did not constitute "occupation." It also came from a leading member of Reagan's administration, the former dean of the Yale Law School and former undersecretary of State, Eugene Rostow, who asserted that "Israel has a stronger claim to the West Bank than any other nation or would-be nation [and] the same legal right to settle the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as it has to settle Haifa or West Jerusalem."
Any suggestions, then, of "freezing" and halting "natural growth" are themselves not only illegal but quite immoral.
Yisrael Medad, an American-born Israeli commentator, has lived in Shiloh since 1981. He is head of information resources at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem and blogs at www.myrightword.blogspot.com.
Comment: These are towns and cities inhabited by Israeli citizens living in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria.
Israqel "Fed up" with US Declarations against Yesha
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu Israel ‘Fed Up’ with US
A senior Israeli government official said that Israel is “fed up” with American statements against Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, the Hebrew-language Yisrael HaYom (Israel Today) newspaper reported Monday.
As Defense Minister Ehud Barak flies to Washington for meetings with U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, the unnamed senior official stated, “Israel will demand that any compromise be part of a wider program of regional peace, and only after agreement on the basic principles outlines by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his [recen speech at Bar-Ilan University.” The Prime Minister declared for the first time that he would accept the creation of a new Arab state on part of the land of Judea and Samaria on condition that it be de-militarized and that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has categorically rejected both conditions after having been encouraged by American and European support for the Arab-world demands that Israel surrender all of the land restored to the Jewish state in the Six-Day War in 1967, including the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Government sources told Yisrael HaYom that during Defense Minister Barak’s visit, “The Americans will hear decisive statements regarding the possibility of freezing construction for Jews in Judea and Samaria. Israel will be prepared to listen to a freeze only if it is temporary and if the Americans will explicitly state” that it will later approve building in communities with a high concentration of Jewish residents.
Israel has stated for public consumption that good relations with the U.S. are important, but any freeze, even temporary, is likely to meet stiff opposition from Shas and Likud party ministers. Shas leader Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) said, "This kind of thinking is incorrect. The discussion needs to be not only about ‘settlements’ but also about obligations of the PA.”
The Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) is thoroughly opposed to any restrictions on building for Jews but is willing to vacate certain hilltop communities, also called “outposts.”
Pinchas Wallerstein, a long-time leader in Yesha, wrote in a local newspaper in Samaria this week that if an outpost was built on Arab land that cannot be purchased by Jews, the Yesha Council would agreed to transfer it to another location on condition that the current building freeze is removed.
He charged that the new American government is trying to take "Barak Hussein Obama's pound of flesh for the Arab world towards which he now sets his sights.” President Obama stated in his Cairo University speech earlier this month that “the U.S. does not view the settlements as legitimate." he has issued repeated calls for a halt to building for Jews,
Even the Washington Post, which usually sides against Israeli policies in Yesha, is concerned with the Obama administration having painted itself a corner in the Arab-Israeli peace process.
Jackson Diehl, the newspaper’s deputy editorial page editor, wrote Monday morning: “The administration made the mistake of insisting that an Israeli settlement ‘freeze’ - a term the past three administrations agreed to define loosely - must mean a total stop to all construction in the West Bank and even East Jerusalem.
“This absolutist position is a loser for three reasons. First, it has allowed Palestinian and Arab leaders to withhold the steps they were asked for; they claim to be waiting for the settlement "freeze" even as they quietly savor a rare public battle between Israel and the United States. Second, the administration's objective -- whatever its merits -- is unobtainable. No Israeli government has ever agreed to an unconditional freeze, and no coalition could be assembled from the current parliament to impose one.
"Finally, the extraction of a freeze from Netanyahu is, as a practical matter, unnecessary. While further settlement expansion needs to be curbed, both the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments have gone along with previous U.S.-Israeli deals by which construction was to be limited to inside the periphery of settlements near Israel -- since everyone knows those areas will be annexed to Israel in a final settlement.”
Comment on this story
4. 50 Houses for Migron Residents - Who Don't Want Them
by Hillel Fendel Gov't Entices Migron With Houses The State announces: A new neighborhood in the developing Yesha city of Adam will be built for the residents of the outpost of Migron – who have not given their consent.
State representatives informed the Court that in accordance with a year-old agreement with the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria – though, significantly, not with the residents themselves – 50 houses would be built for them in the town of Adam, three aerial kilometers to the south.
50 Now, 1,400 at a Date to be Named Later - if Ever
The Defense Ministry announced that it had approved in principle no fewer than 1,450 new housing units in the burgeoning town of Adam, but that at present, only 50 units would be built. Every additional group of units will require a special permit from the Defense Ministry.
Politicians on both sides of the spectrum see the move as designed to liquidate the Jewish settlement enterprise. MK Michael Ben-Ari (National Union) called on the residents not to accept the plan, saying, “The Prime Minister means to destroy Yesha, beginning with the dismantling of the smaller communities. There is no room here for compromises and concessions.” The residents have thus far been adamant in refusing to give up their homes.
MK Amir Peretz (Labor), a former Defense Minister, said that the idea of relocating Migron is a very important one: “It is very positive that little outposts are being included inside larger towns, in anticipation of a final status agreement with the Palestinian Authority,” he told Army Radio.
The timing of the announcement coincides with Defense Minister Ehud Barak's trip to Washington, where he will reportedly offer to freeze new Yesha construction for the next three months.
History
Migron was founded in March 2002 on a strategic hilltop overlooking the highway leading from Jerusalem to Beit El, Shilo and northward. It grew to 30 families within only a few months, and later to 43 – but its growth was abruptly cut short by a government order to ban new caravans and construction in the area. Within a year of its founding, it began appearing on lists of outposts to be destroyed by Ariel Sharon’s government, and has lived under the shadow of destruction every since.
The Biblical location Migron is mentioned in Samuel I 14,2 and Isaiah 10, 28.
Cabinet Minister Moshe Yaalon, a former IDF Chief of Staff and a strong force behind Migron's establishment, said at the time that it was strategically important for Israel to grab that spot - a high hilltop overlooking a highway leading to Psagot, Beit El, Kokhav Yaakov, Michmash, Ofrah, and more.
In October 2003, Migron and other outposts were granted a form of government recognition. Ron Shechner, Settlement Affairs Advisor to then-Defense Minister Sha'ul Mofaz , explained, "This is a recognition of the fact that people who live in these places are entitled to basic services such as security and defense, lighting, children's nurseries, and the like. The fundamental question of the outposts' legality must still be decided by the government."
Just two months later, Defense Minister Mofaz gave the order to uproot and dismantle Migron. Within two weeks, though, when the government saw it would have to deal with thousands of people planning to come and defend the site, and when strong opposition arose within the Likud, Migron was taken off the immediate chopping-block list. The long-term threat was never removed, however.
Peace Now Seeks Out Arab Claimants
Sometime afterwards, Peace Now sought out Arabs who claimed to own some of the land on which Migron was built, and a court suit demanding its destruction was filed. Residents of Migron emphasize that though some of the land on which Migron was founded is officially listed as Arab-owned, these Arabs had never come forward to make their claim, nor had they ever cultivated these lands - until Peace Now sought them out and encouraged them to do so.
Dozens of outposts have been established throughout Judea and Samaria before and since the Oslo Accords, and many of them have developed into full-fledged communities, including synagogues and educational facilities. The only thing rendering them illegal and unauthorized, Yesha leaders say, is the fact that Defense Minister Barak refuses to sign the final approval. Many towns throughout Israel were established in a similar manner: first facts on the ground, then official approval.
Comment on this story
5. PA Blocking Dead Sea from 7 Wonders of the World Contest
by Yehudah Lev Kay PA Blocks Dead Sea From Contest
The Palestinian Authority has refused to nominate the Dead Sea for a worldwide contest to select the new seven natural wonders of the world, and as a result the famous salty sea will probably be disqualified from the contest next week.
The Dead Sea is currently ranked number six in voting in the "Lakes, Rivers and Waterfalls" category, which would guarantee it a spot in the next round of the New Seven Wonder contest. However, in order to advance according to the contest rules, the PA must join Israel and Jordan in forming a committee of support for the lake's nomination, which it refuses to do.
“We will not be forming a committee,” PA Tourism Minister Khouloud Douaibes told Reuters, claiming the Israeli part of the committee “has been consulting with settler councilmen on occupied land.”
Jordan has already agreed to participate, and its Dead Sea committee of support is headed by Nayef Al-Fayez, the country’s Health Minister.
The Israeli committee to support the sea was formed by the Megilot Dead Sea Regional Council, which consists of six communities to the northwest of the sea, just inside the Green Line. It did not include communities in Judea and Samaria, although these also neighbor the Dead Sea, but aroused the ire of the PA anyway.
“We’re very disappointed by their decision,” Megilot spokewoman Gura Berger told Israel National News. “We hope that in any case the Seven Wonders committee will allow the Dead Sea to move on to the next stage of the contest.”
Berger explained that if the Dead Sea overcomes the political barriers in its way, it will most likely be nominated for the final stage of voting, in which she hopes dedicated Dead Sea fans can propel it to the top slot.
Voting for the New Seven Wonders of the World is currently underway at http://www.new7wonders.com/
Comment on this story
6. AOL Director In Country To Join Israel's 'GarageGeeks'
by Malkah Fleisher AOL Chief in Israel Monday
AOL chief executive officer Tim Armstrong arrives in Israel Monday, representing the global Internet services and media company at a GarageGeeks event in Holon hosted by Israeli entrepreneur Yossi Vardi.
GarageGeeks "is an Israeli based not-profit physical and virtual space for innovative and creative people to introduce, network, expose, create, brainstorm, innovate and build," says the group's website. "People that take part in the activities come from different disciplines such as electronics, software, mechanical, art, design, music, hacking and gaming. The spirit of GarageGeeks promotes building non-commercial projects that otherwise may not have come to life."
True to their name, the geniuses who are responsible for many of Israel's modern inventions meet periodically in a machinery garage in Holon, where Armstrong will also give a speech and mingle.
AOL's chief is a welcome visitor in Israel, not just because of his prominence, but also because of the international business relationship he represents. While Yahoo has an investment in Israel and Google co-founder Sergey Brin visited in the spring of 2008, AOL has by far the largest stake in Israeli companies of the major internet giants. The company, formerly known as America Online, employs 200 Israelis.
The communications company has already purchased Israeli companies Mirabilis (developers of ICQ instant messaging), Relegence (real-time intelligence automation), Quigo (online advertising), and Yedda (search technology) to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
While in country, Armstrong – who was named CEO in March- will continue AOL's work to foster a link between Israel's high-tech community and the conglomerate, meeting with various Israeli start-ups.
During his stay, Armstrong will focus on companies suited to AOL's profile.
An Endangered America
Alan Caruba
“My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy!” said Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third President. As usual, he was right.
Present-day Americans take for granted the story of the American Revolution, but few consider what a fearful undertaking that was when the Declaration was published on July 4, 1776.
Thirteen colonies of the greatest power on Earth at that time, Great Britain, determined to establish a free and independent nation.
With some notable exceptions, we are mostly ignorant of the signers of that document and I would be willing to guess that few Americans realize how long the war for our independence lasted.
It began with a local militia engagement with the British in Lexington, Massachusetts
in 1775. It would end eight years later in 1783 at Yorktown, Virginia. Estimates are that 25,000 Americans gave their lives over the course of the war; some 8,000 in battle and the rest by disease or as prisoners of war.
Eight years is a long time and it is generally conceded that the tenaciousness and will of one man led to victory. His name was George Washington.
“Those who won our independence believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty,” said Louis D. Brandeis, a Supreme Court Justice.
What followed the Revolution were the Articles of Confederation that proved a dismal failure. On May 25, 1787, in great secrecy, a group of delegates from seven States, gathered to revise them. Eventually, 12 of the 13 States were represented.
The Constitution they devised was intended to ensure the process of passing legislation was a slow, laborious one, and that the federal government would have only a few, clearly enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the States and the People.
The men who wrote the Constitution feared both the mob and the concentration of too much power in the federal government. The States were and are independent, sovereign republics.
The U.S. Constitution officially became the law of the land when New Hampshire
ratified it on June 21, 1788, being the ninth State to do so. The vote was 57 Yeas, 47 Nays.
The poet, Archibald MacLeish, said it best. “There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.”
The American dream is now the dream of billions around the world. It inspires hope everywhere. It draws to our shores those who want to live and thrive in freedom.
We are a nation in grave danger of being deprived of everything so many Americans worked, fought, and sometimes died to maintain.
We are being betrayed by a political and economic socialist theory that is the antithesis of the American system of governance. It killed millions in the last century.
We are being governed by fear as one “crisis” or another is announced and we are being governed by too many men and women in Congress who have heedlessly plunged the nation into unimaginable debt and propose to burden present and future generations with destructive taxation.
The limits on energy in the name of a non-existent global warming that the Congress is enacting are limits on America’s ability to compete in a world where other nations are using energy, not banning it.
America in 2009 must be reclaimed in the name of all those who came before us and in the name of generations to come. So long as we have the right to make our voices heard, we must demand an end to the plundering of the public treasury, an end to public ownership of private enterprises, and an end to the effort to control our lives through the takeover of the nation’s healthcare system.
July 4th is a good day to demand that President Barack Hussein Obama – if he really was born in Mombassa, Kenya
, then raised in Indonesia, and leaving no discernible paper trail in America – resign before he does further harm to all Americans, to the American dream, and to the hope of freedom in the hearts of men and women everywhere in the world.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/. Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center, http://www.anxietycenter.com/..
Letter to President Obama: Statements on Demonstrations in Iran from Iranian-Americans
.jpg)
June 29, 2009
Letter to President Obama: Statements on Demonstrations in Iran from Iranian-Americans
The Editors
Editor’s note: The following is a letter that was sent to President Obama on June 26, 2009 from Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and founder and co-chair of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus.
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As demonstrators in Iran continue to voice their support for democracy, I am deeply concerned that Iranian-American voices are not being heard. Their cultural and personal ties to the uprising in Iran are invaluable and deserve the attention of our great country.. Mr. President, below are a sample of statements on the uprising from Iranian-American leaders from across the U.S. I hope you will have your staff contact the people behind these statements to utilize their knowledge. No one better understands Iran, and what is happening on the ground there, than those with direct links to the country. Few in America should have greater say about our policy toward Iran than Iranian-Americans who fear for the safety of their friends and family still living in Iran.
“Mr. President it is now proven to you and your advisors that no matter what you say or don’t say the Islamic regime in Iran, like all other dictators, will blame United States because without it they have no other reason for being in power. This is an inescapable fact. Your advisors also know that the Islamic regime in Iran will drag negotiations without any outcome the history has proven this fact. Now that the people of Iran have been able to use a window of opportunity to prove to the world that this regime is not their representative, standing with them, is the right political decision to make. Oppressed people have always looked to America for freedom.”
- Manda Zand Ervin with the Alliance of Iranian Women
Ellicott City, MD
“President Obama, please do not act against the will of Iranian people. Do not recognize the illegitimate government
of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei.”
- Dr. Saeed Ganji with the National Union For Democracy in Iran
Potomac, MD
“Dear Mr. President, where is your outrage for the rights of Iranian people. Please don't be offended by our anger or request of asking you more. Iran is a hot issue for you and your administration and it is the place that my mother and others people mothers and families live. Please stand with us, we don't need you to tell us, you care, we need you to show it in actions. We don't need you to change the regime for us. But at this moment our youth are on the streets of Iran, there are many things you can do for the Iranians to earn their freedom. We know Freedom is Not Free. We are not asking you send us taxpayers’ money but are in great needs of logistics. We need satellites, that our youth can send their message out, but not be traced through the newest technology the American companies have sold the IRI leaders. Give us the logistics we need, or our beloved youth risking their lives, can be located via GPS of their cell phones – one by one and get killed. We know what we need and we know the road is tough, please help us to earn our freedom.”
- Ghazal Omid with Iran & Its Future.org
Washington, DC
“President Obama, please stand with us in our struggle for democracy & freedom against the barbaric regime in Iran. Over 190 unarmed innocent Iranian have been killed & over 4,000 have been injured and arrested. Please help us now."
- Bahman Maalizadeh
Charlotte, NC
“Dear Mr. President, please Read this letter from a young female Iranian student who is determined to change her future and her country's direction into freedom and liberty. It is very touching: “I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I'm listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It's worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I'm two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow's children..."
- Ali Salehi
Dallas, TX
“For 30 years all presidents in the United States have not known the true nature of the Islamic Republic and based on that, they could not deal with them. Ayatollah Khomaini (sic) set the strategy for the all extremist leaders including Iran. He said, “it is not struggle between Iran and U.S. it is struggle between Islam and blasphemy.” Islamic Republic leaders will never have a relation with the United States.”
- Dr. Iraj Arianpour with the Young Iranian National party
Fairfax, VA
“Mr. President, if the United States is serious about fighting terrorism, start from (sic) Iran. The United States must realize that the people of Iran are your best ally.
- Dr. Mansour Kashfi with the National Union For Democracy in Iran
Richardson, TX
“Mr. President, it is a privilege to write to you with regards to the recent events in my home country of Iran. As you are well aware, the Islamic Republic regime has dramatically increased atrocities against Iranians in the past few days that has resulted in many fatalities, injuries and imprisonment among peaceful Iranian citizens who have tolerated this brutal regime for the past 30 years. The Islamic Republic regime and its leadership will not hesitate to massacre thousands of Iranians since they have never cared for the safety and welfare of Iranian citizens. As concerned Iranian-Americans, we would like to respectfully ask you to act against the evil deeds of this evil regime by cutting off all political and economical ties with the Islamic republic and strongly encourage our allies around the world, including the European Union, Japan, Canada, South American countries, and possibly Russia and China to follow suit by withdrawing their ambassadors from Iran and expelling the Islamic Republic diplomats from their respective countries. Mr. President, Iranians are peaceful people and want nothing but peace and tranquility for the region and the world. Unfortunately this criminal regime has painted an ugly impression of Iran and Iranians throughout the world. I do not recommend any military attacks against Iran as that will strengthen the regime, but rather, economical sanctions such as boycotting Iranian oil, stopping sales of refined gasoline and natural gas back to the Islamic republic and most importantly, providing strong support for Iranians struggle to free themselves from this evil "un-Iranian" regime.”
- S. Massoud (Mike) Azizi
Canoga Park, CA
Thank you for taking the time to read these statements. They remind us that this uprising is about human rights and human dignity, and directly impacts people and families here in America.
Sincerely,
Sue Myrick
Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)